


FRY ee Ne OL Ly, 
A RB he tay Mew 
ANS ital eit 












“At yp? Ret sae ae 


a 4a oe Shs a9 as 
‘ os iets fh. » 

oe Bhitg alk ey ig ne 
i te i Me sig 
Diese sink ete 


CaN 4744 
Mah t Yi bribe Sew fe p ipe 
’ a at n) RN 4 "44 HS: : Ht vis f iia) as fs Sey 
api v's aaa PAA IAG oui Dy! Abs, iy ake ha gfe PAS 3 shi) ‘3 se) BS ANDRO AANA 
EH ROH MOCHA ORR ok WHat yas94 19 a4 Arey we vee " pes iM 








3, ae 
MH ue ee nat oe Ny yA (H 



































A 

aii i SOON NR APSHURY UNE Fe Ath vo Sh 8h ah) Vya9 

WF 3 0.94 08 48 Way PS MH PEAT ‘ha Pah La Mehr a Gas wn 

14 i F it 4 PW Ae fy eg ar 

A vr 9, Wi WUhA i ral Nh wh sii Pe ‘ a ih; ‘y is iy iii is ie aie oe fe % Bie ni 
ay Oe ue AWA, a atia it ae ie Curie ke ai fh wor { 2 4) rihelehy ie As ee h td aie Cot trae Mites 
Aa We Ris Way my AN, bit G. Me i, sia? ‘nk if fy a a Hi Hid) " ih iy 44 sri i } pe Va ities AAA ee Cb se a 1h 

i" i ha V4 UTE ysis RAC i Hon ! i i iW a itoena Ha ar ie ‘ ra eeatie byt 
ants Mg t's PAN HRMS SE i i ai hissy uh Mi yi We ee shi eta. aN i yhinne a A 

Sear Whoa Wt at Oy EAMES Wiis oy 
0H ee VND. irs SRK +f iii 43) hal i Ai ie ie 


eat 


a 
y on iH 
oe 





; 4 WOKE) ye CNS ENE 4 

in ja iH) Ws AN yi it Wry sie ty yi, uA fil 
| ) f eAaM 

iii ile? ay, nual, Pati wild aay tetany 


ning 


AMe 

ne eh fees a Yea} 

ip a 
ooh 








ie 
i iihigy 
es lee Ks a is nN ey ae ae 
of 4 Wu us 


’ Ay 4, A te 
Mi 43's a Mth a 
4 Woo a) etait 
16 i ‘Re 

UA Ns, ii bi ie A 
We Ny mh 4 Ny fh Me 


vio 
avd WE RHC 
? iB) Ke iy 




























ies i 
Bie Ht “ i fio 









sii i 
Baa 

















WA) Ae Aaah eH? 
OSE OH i 44 a ah Rep Dea atte 

i ne OSHA hay id i, on sin i shan ries Ne 
« an i Ke a fet it aa Dah ne Hy fa Ate is 


ih Hi 


Wey ja 
ie ibe ty ts 


net ue ee 
as Sioa cs 





wy) i, BN hh: ing 
W) A) sat ni 
ay aie 



















ee 
ge 
cs 


= Se 
Bs = ¢ ae ct 
oe —— 
Se one ates 
rete* Ee 
a5 
3 
ee 





















8 
agen 





















ANAS AA i Sil we 


ea 


4 bigs iy) Be 4 ta Bae Aka J 

i Shih Py ! i ae a tit e - ae : 

Mh PON i ( Hes aa f us fi Path aa sand 
‘ 


HE ri a Tei 
oo iy 4939 oa ee 




















i : ree 
ae No uy MR st Pa banana i i _ atin vA Ais ue 
ve 1 Ha, Wh An as i Oo ! eB ; ea a} 
0 t 







oe 


i, 4 Ha Sa ate 
ae . . ene . 
Hi ened HD ete a 


















Ke ail An Vii wea 









































































a ; i 
nt y i ve ati rey ales ua) tet fas ne esi aly oy Y Wy 
ee ae oy ae ea ae 
yay ons Ay i) el Vie i ut i i a ve i Tae ae i aie Clas a 
prepa iv yh) ae , Ng ou et teak ity Ciba a . Wai hee wins 
ae h vt Bah aa rie sh no ae eee i bis es ate ie ts ee stata 
ay a a" ‘i An ar ihn i zie tt Hy i i ih he ee ‘ i , nt 
Spaniel Nigh i ” Kh Ahi ny ee Na 
co a hy ee i ey ay u o 
ae ae 











eh ae il 
; Neat, he ee ia 
is iy iy ih ei ie Mae ANNE 
Ne ue i} ee ah he i . 
io i xy ae i 
ihe HHH 

” ee Hue 

















i) 
Pint a ye 
betta) tf it iy tM 

oS i Ne Ry 


a ae uh ny he 


a on a a 
| Y 


















i ad 
aN Se 








aoe Hi 
ast 
Ae 









a 









3 is ai ite a: 
Hong ilgeUiicaatad steaainn ta 
ee os oe Wi 
Ra eias eee acheh i 
ANE Nie toe 4 
mt ae Sh 
Aig ais 















i } 
Ws if, ai an 





etn 





ey : tt His an 
Sih bt a at 























BHA 9.9 oN, “y : 
ty mht a4 CNN aye nie hh i vi 
: sgh fiy ks i BN 
fee tathaibent tah Tain K welt 3 
aK 4 sha Aves a ne a i La ete 
rigs tis ny Vth fi, st ASS ag mh 





ne at aa 
na ee ee . 



























: ith a sy 
eit ure Nay . its i ix 
an wat an iia at 
Ss 
Mirus xis Ht ip Ae 
a oe 


(io Asi ui 
<f eaala nigh rN 
se A by pauls i 


ge 


popes 
see BOE. 
i eet eae ares 





ist aS 
RE eed a a 

San ua aaa Sa 
Xs a bah st is sauna Re iaye bis nena 


AYA Aiea Ange 


ine Aas 4 et sient uh alee ay nae is ith a ay 
ane iv i. : wa - iti me ht Sea sha re a i 
iti i 43 



























it 
e) a ih oa 



























tak ‘ aus vA Wr etiviyi ty Mahe sth 
4 Pathe A vi abo cosa it 1 uA Aa on a Whale ih ie ois 
4 MW iit Ni RNR y) a Fase) 1G is AE ‘ a ab LR) need Phas Liat ay Ste i 
City alto SHU NOUN atten tna Pate Ge ot Se i 








Sh a Hisagh iyi Nanak ‘hehe aul o 
Me + sas ae iia he 
MGh oS cee oS SW tS Se 






















ahaa 
nit 4a ese! 


ays 












he ane a 
























oy it si : fen NG eh ae ‘ GN, or + 
Araaieaehuase wea hede % aha 2 
Ss Au oe ny : 
ee Aiea he LE fe ae a 
‘A has i iy SATA NED Ay 4 ERE EAR iat ri 


teats 
Sade tbs iba thle hee > Ky * athe ih 
aba he hasgtape gens ans in We Aah a Me afanalhs Raes a Sh ty 


UNIVERSITY OF 
ILLINOIS LIBRARY 
AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
STACKS 





NOTICE: Return or renew all Library Materials! The Minimum Fee for 
each Lost Book is $50.00. 


The person charging this material is responsible for 
its return to the library from which it was withdrawn 
on or before the Latest Date stamped below. 


Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for discipli- 
nary action and may result in dismissal from the University. 
To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 


UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 






JAN 03 1989 


APR 05 WBS 


: "weamep 


L161—O-1096 





LO MY “FATHER 


GEORGE LEON WALKER 


“ oe 


WHOSE INTEREST 
iD 
O IN CONGREGATIONAL HISTORY FIRST AWAKENED MY DESIRE 
* 
a TO KNOW SOMETHING OF 
x? 
“on 


Congregational Creeds and Platforms 
AND WHOSE SYMPATHY 
HAS ENCOURAGED ME THROUGHOUT THESE STUDIES 
THIS VOLUME 


IS AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED 


1 2 ih Aa Re se 
Research. maglish. 30% OS Stechert ce) 





| ‘a 
Digitized by the Internet Archive ; 
in 2021 with funding from 
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 










voit, 
Ri 
Bi 


0 


f /https://archive.org/details/creedsplatiormso00walk_0— 


PREFACE 


ONGREGATIONALISM has always accorded large liberty 
to local churches in their interpretation of doctrine and 
polity. Its creeds are not exclusively binding, and its platforms 
have always been held to be open to revision. They have been 
witnesses to the faith and practice of the churches rather than 
tests for subscription. But by reason of this liberty a collection 
of Congregational creeds and platforms illustrates the history of 
the body whose expressions they are better than if those symbols 
were less readily amended. ‘The points wherein they agree may 
therefore confidently be believed to set forth that which is 
abiding inthe faith and practice of the churches, while the 
features of change and the traces of discussion of more tem- 
porary importance which these creeds and platforms exhibit 
illustrate as clearly that which is mutable in our ecclesiastical 
life. It is because the writer deems such a collection of prime 
value in illuminating the history of Congregationalism that this 
compilation has been made. \ 

This volume has grown out of the experiences “of the. class- 
room. In his endeavors to teach the story of Congregation- 
alism the writer has been hindered at all points by the inaccessi- 
bility of much of the material which must be before the 
student or’ the minister if a knowledge of denominational 
history is to be more than second hand. He has therefore 
collected the most important Congregational creeds and plat- 
forms, and has illustrated them as far as he is able by such 
_ historic notes and comments as may serve to make the circum- 
stances of their composition and their meaning plain. He has 
had in mind the necessities of the general reader whose knowl- 
edge of the sources of our denominational history is rudimentary, 
and has endeavored to point out with the utmost plainness the 
basis of every important statement, and to indicate the literature 
of each symbol, hoping that by this fullness of annotation the 
student may find his way comparatively readily should he 


(v) 


Vi PREFACE 


desire to make a minute study of Congregational beliefs and 
usages. 

In reproducing these symbols the writer has reprinted the 
text of the earliest editions known to him to be extant. He 
has endeavored faithfully to reproduce the spelling and punctua- 
tion, and even the misprints, deeming that the dress in which 
these documents were presented to the world, sometimes by 
persecuted congregations and with the scantiest resources, is 
of value in forming our estimate of the impression which they 
were calculated to produce on their time. That the writer has 
wholly avoided misprints of his own in this reproduction he 
hardly dares to hope,—he has used great pains so to do;— 
but he trusts that before the reader condemns an illprinted 
passage it may be compared with the original to see if the fault 
was not that of the earliest printer. 

The writer is under obligation to many scholars for sugges- 
tions, but he would especially acknowledge his indebtedness to 
the librarians of the American Antiquarian Society at Worces- 
ter, the Public Library at Boston, the Connecticut Historical 
Society and Watkinson Library at Hartford, the Massachusetts 
Historical Society at Boston, and of Yale University, for the 
access which they have afforded him to the treasures in their 
custody. 

This volume is sent forth with the hope that it may serve 
to make easier the pathway to a knowledge of Congregational 
history, and may illustrate the essential unity as well as the 
healthful growth which has marked the development of creed 
and practice from the founders of Congregationalism to our 
own day. 


flartford, Conn,, July 15, 1893 


IT: 


III. 


LV 


Vi. 


VIII. 


1X: 


XI. 


CONTENTS 


ROBERT BROWNE’S STATEMENT OF CONGREGATIONAL PRIN- 
CIPEES “1s. ". ; : 
Extracts from Browne's Works, 


THE FIRST CONFESSION OF THE LONDON—AMSTERDAM 
CHURCH, 1589, 
Text of the Confession, 


THE SECOND CONFESSION OF THE LONDON—AMSTERDAM 
CHURCH, 1596, 
Text of the Confession, 


THE POINTS OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONGREGATIONALISM 
AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, 1603, 
Text of the Points, . 


THE SEVEN ARTICLES OF 1617 AND THE MAYFLOWER COM- 
PACT OF 1620; °; 
Text of the Articles, 
Text of the Compact, 


THE DEVELOPMENT OF COVENANT AND CREED IN THE 
SALEM CHURCH, 1629-1665, 
Texts of the Covenants of 1629 and 1636, 
The Anti-Quaker Article of 1660-1, . 
Text of the Direction of 1665, 


THE COVENANT OF THE CHARLESTOWN-BOSTON CHURCH, 
LO402, , : 
Text of the Covenant, 


HOooKER’sS SUMMARY OF CONGREGATIONAL PRINCIPLES, 1645, 
Extracts from the ‘‘Survey,” 


THE WINDSOR CREED-COVENANT, 1647, 
Text of the Covenant, 


THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM, 1646-1648, 
Extracts from the Tentative Conclusions of 1646, 
Preface and Text of the Platform, 


THE HA.LF-Way CovENANT DECISIONS OF 1657 AND 1662, 
Extracts from the Result of 1657, 
Text of the Conclusions of 1662, 


( an 


PAGE 


I-27 
18-27 


28-40 
33-40 


41-74 
49-74 


75-80 
77-80 


81-92 
89, 90 
92 


93-122 
116-118 
118 
IIg-122 


123-131 

131 
132-148 
143-148 
149-156 
154-156 
157-237 
189-193 
194-237 
238-339 
288-300 
301-339 


Vill 


XII. 


XIII. 


XIV. 


XVI. 


XVII. 


XVIII. 


XIX. 


XX. 


CONTENTS 


THE Savoy DECLARATION, 1658, 
Preface, 
Text of the Confestenn 
The Platform of Polity, . 


THE ‘‘ REFORMING SYNOD” OF 1679-1680, AND ITS CON- 
FESSION OF FAITH, : 
Text of the ‘‘ Necessity of Reformation,” 
Preface to the Confession, : : 
Text of the Confession (Savoy Confeeion and notes), 


THE ‘‘ HEADS OF AGREEMENT,” I69I, AND OTHER UNION 
EFFORTS OF THE SEVENTEETH CENTURY, 
Extracts from the Agreement of 1656, 
Preface and text of the ‘‘ Heads,” 


THE MASSACHUSETTS PROPOSALS OF 1705, AND THE SAY- 
BROOK PLATFORM OF 1708, 
Text of the Proposals, ; 
Prefaces to the Saybrook Result, 
Text of the Platform, 


THE ‘‘ PLAN OF UNION,” 1801, 
Text of the Plan, 


THE ENGLISH DECLARATION OF 1833, . 
Text of the Declaration, 


THE ‘‘BuRIAL HILL” DECLARATION OF *FAITH ; AND THE 
STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES OF POLITY, 1865, . 
Text of the Declaration, 
Text of the Statement, 


THE CONSTITUTION OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL, AND OBER- 
LIN DECLARATION, 1871, 
Text of the Constitution, 
Text of the Declaration, . 


THE ‘‘ COMMISSION” CREED OF 1883, 
Text of the Creed, 


INDEX, 


PAGE 
340-408 
354-367 
367-402 
403-408 


409-439 
423-437 
438, 439 
367-402 


440-462 
453,454 
455-462 


463-523 
486-490 
517-523 
503-506 


524-541 
530, 531 


542-552 
548-552 


553-569 
562-564 
567, 568 


570-576 
572-574 
575,576 
577-584 
580-582 


585-604 


I 


Rook) BROWNE Ss STATEMENT, OF *CONGRE- 
GraplLON MIE SERINCIPLES, vigs2 


TEXT 

I. A Booke | which Sheweth the | life and manners of all true Christians, | 
and howe unlike they are unto Turkes and Papistes, | and Heathen folke, | Also 
the pointes and partes of all diui-| nitie, that is of the reuealed will and worde of 
God, are | declared by their seuerall Definitions, | and Diuisions in order as | fol- 
loweth. | Robert Brovune. | Middelbvrgh, | Imprinted by Richarde Painter. | 1582. 


An Dp Lit. 

II. A few of the sections, extracted from Browne’s work, are given in Han- 
bury, Hstorical Memorials Relating to the Independents, etc., London 1839, I: 20- 
22;-in Fletcher, Azstory . . . of Independency, London 1862, II: 114-117; 
and in Punchard, History of Congregationalism, Boston [1867], III: 14-17. 


LITERATURE 

The works of Hanbury, Fletcher, and Punchard, above cited; [Waddington], 
fistorical Papers, London 1861, pp. 33-48; Waddington, Congregational History, 
1567-1700, London 1874, p. 16; Bacon, Genesis of the New England Churches, 
New York 1874, pp. 81-90; rane fTistory of Congregationalism . . 27 
Norfolk and Suffolk, London 1877, chs. I-III; Dexter, 7%e Bea iicinonen of 
the last three hundred years, as seen in tts Literature, New York 1880, pp. 61-128. 


ODERN Congregationalism is a legitimate outcome of a 
M consistent application to church polity of the principles of 
the Reformation. The fundamental religious thought of 

that movement was the rejection of all authority save that of the 
Word of God. But, while this cardinal principle was recognized 
by all the reformers, there was great variety in the extent to which 
they carried its application. All of them agreed that the will of 
God had prescribed in the Bible the sufficient test of Christian 
doctrine, but none of the reformers of the first rank felt the neces- 
sity of a complete conformity of their systems of church polity to 
the same standard. The paramount importance of doctrinal re- 
form, the necessity for the orderly control of the church in the 
trying period of transition from its ancient form, and especially 
the disorders which the advent of ecclesiastical freedom excited 


Coy 


2 BROWNE'S CONGREGATIONALISM 


ainong,the lower classes, induced Luther and Zwingli, neither of 
whony were organizers by nature, to put aside their early inclina- 
tions. toward the Substantially Congregational system’ which they 
recognized in the New Testament example, in favor of a would-be 
temporary dependence on the civil rulers of the lands in which 
they lived for the organization of their new churches. Calvin was 
an organizer, and though he sought scripture warrant for the sys- 
tem which he established, he seems to have been led to its adoption 
largely by the necessities of his position in the foremost outpost 
of Protestantism at Geneva; and he admitted, on one occasion at 
least, that his eldership was primarily a device of expediency.’ 
And if these men did not fully recognize that the legitimate out- 
come of the principles of the Reformation was the test of church 
government as well as Christian doctrine by the standard of the 
Bible, this truth was even less clearly perceived in England, where 
the state Establishment which was the outcome of the Reforma- 
tion was designedly a compromise, in which a large portion of the 
ancient government and ceremonial was retained, and in which the 
fountain of ecclesiastical authority was the sovereign. 

But if the leaders of the Reformation thus fell short of a full 
application of their principles, there were those from almost the 
beginning of the movement who sought to go further. These 
men, nicknamed usually by their opponents the ‘ Anabaptists,” ® 
first came to notice about 1523-44 in the portions of Switzerland 
which had felt the reforming touch of Zwingh. Persecuted at 
once by Protestants and Catholics, they were dispersed with great 
rapidity all over Germany and the Netherlands and came even to 
England. They were drawn chiefly from the lower orders of the 


population, and were often characterized by extreme fanaticism.° 


1 See zuter alta, Gieseler, Church History, ed. New York 1876, IV: 518; Fisher, Reforma-: 
tion, pp. 488-495; Dexter, Cong. as seen, p. 51; Schaff, Hist. of the Christian Church, V1: 538. 

2 For valuable quotations illustrative of this point see Dexter, /d7d., pp. 52, 53. 

3 I. e., ‘* Re-baptizers,’’ because they held infant baptism no baptism. 

4 See the valuable paper of Rev. Dr. Burrage, Anabaptists of the Stxteenth Century, 
Papers of the Am. Soc. Church Hist., WW: 145-164. Keller in his suggestive Dze Reformation 
und date alteren Reformparteten, Leipzig 1885, holds, asmany others have done, the Anabaptists 
to be successors of mediaeval sects, but his thesis is not fully proven. 

5 As early as 1535 fourteen were burned in one year in England. Executions continued un- 
der English Protestant sovereigns, e. g. under Elizabeth in 1575, and James in 1612. 

8 The most conspicuous illustration is of course the Miinster anarchy, 1532-s.° 


ANABAPTIST PRINCIPLES 3 


But the fanatics were only a fraction of the Anabaptists, and under 
the lead of men like Menno Simons,’ in Holland especially, they 
settled down into orderly and valuable citizens. They were 
everywhére marked by a desire to carry the principles of the 
Reformation to their logical outcome, and hence they tried to test 
not only doctrine but polity and Christian life by the same rule. 
The natural tendency of men to put differing constructions on the 
same facts of revelation, increased in their case by the ignorance 
of a great part of the body and an inclination to lay stress on the 
direct illumination of the believers by the Holy Spirit, led to diver- 
sities of belief among them, so that we can lay down no rigid creed 
for the Anabaptists as a whole; but there were certain features in 
their beliefs which appear also in the views of the Baptists, the 
Quakers, and the Congregationalists.? 

The Protestant bodies founded by the great reformers of the 
sixteenth century were all at one in recognizing every baptized 
person, residing within the territories where they were established 
and not formally excommunicate, as a church member. Church 
and state were practically co-extensive. Even the Puritans of 
England, who labored under Elizabeth for the purification and full 
Protestantizing of the Establishment, and from whom the majority 
of early Congregationalists were to come, held to the church- 
membership of all non-excommunicate Englishmen, and looked 
upon the true method of reform as a vigorous purging from within 
by the rigid enforcement of discipline, the appointment of the 
officers whom they believed to be designated in the Scripture 
model, and the aid of civil magistrates, rather than a separation 
from the national church.*| The Anabaptists, on the other hand, 
maintained that a church was a company of Christian believers, 
gathered out of the world,’ to which men were admitted by con- 

1 1492-1559. 

2 See the articles by Prof. de Hoop Scheffer on Menno and the Mennonites in the Herzog 
Real-Encyclopadie fiir protestantische Theologie, Leipzig, 1881 (briefly abridged in the Schaff- 
Herzog, Encyclopedia, New York [1882]). 

8 This relation has been positively, perhaps too positively, insisted upon by Campbell, Pur?- 
tan in Holland, England, and America, New Vork, 1892, II: 177-209. 


4 Compare Dexter, Cong. as seen, pp. 54-58. Briggs, American Presbyterianism, New 


York, 1885, p. 43. 
5 For the doctrines of the Anabaptists, especially the Mennonite branch, which had the 


4 BROWNE'S CONGREGATIONALISM 


fession and baptism; that each congregation of believers should be 
independent of all external control, civil or ecclesiastical, and that 
the civil magistrate had no authority over the church; that no 
believer should bear the sword, take oath, or hold the office of a 
magistrate; that each congregation should be kept. pure by disci- ) 
pline, and should be led by elders chosen by itself, who should 
serve it without compensation. So they held the New Testament 
pattern of a Christian church to require. 

Like the modern Baptists, the Anabaptists had no creeds of 
general binding force. Some confessions were issued by indi- 
viduals and congregations, and some as formule of union between 
various branches of the much divided body, but each congregation 
accepted or rejected what it chose. In general, however, the 
agreement regarding all the more essential features of doctrine 
and polity was close. A few extracts from the popular confession 
prepared by the Mennonite ministers Hans de Ries and Lubbert 
Gerrits for the benefit of the one time Congregationalist John 
Smyth and. his company in 1609 at Amsterdam,—a confession 
based on and representative of the writings of the older Mennonite 
Anabaptists and widely used by the Mennonite churches of Hol- 
land,— may serve to set forth some of these beliefs more clearly:’ 


‘*22. Such faithful, righteous people, scattered in several parts of the world, 
being the true congregations of God, or the church of Christ, whom he saved, and 
for whom he gave himself, that he might sanctify them, ye [yea] whom he hath 
cleansed by the washing of water in the word of life: of all such is Jesus the Head, 
the Shepherd, the Leader, the Lord, the King, and Master. Now although among 
these there may be mingled a company of seeming holy ones, or hypocrites; yet, 
nevertheless, they are and remain only the righteous, true members of the body of 





most influence in Holland, see beside the articles of Prof. de Hoop Scheffer, before cited; Barclay, 
Inner Life of the Religious Socteties of the Commonwealth, London, 3d ed., 1879, pp. 75-92: 
Dr. Burrage, Papers Am. Soc. Ch. Hist., 111: 157; Prof. Schaff, in Baptist Quarterly Review, 
July 1889. Much further and minuter information is contained in the works of the Mennonite his- 
torian, Hermann Schyn, Historia Christianorum Quit in Belgio Faderato inter Protestantes 
Mennonite appellantur, Amsterdam, 1723, and Historie Mennonttarum Plenior Deductio, ibid, 
1729. 

1 Regarding the circumstances of the appeal of Smyth and his brethren for admission to 
the Amsterdam Mennonite church of which Gerrits was minister, and the preparation of this Con- 
fession, see Evans, Early English Baptists, London, 1862, I. 201-224; Barclay, /xner Life, etc., 
pp. 68-73; De Hoop Scheffer, De Brownisten te Amsterdam, etc. (Memoir before the Royal 
Academy), published Amsterdam, 1881; Dexter, True Story of John Smyth, the Se-Baptist, etc., 
Boston, 1881. The Confession as originally prepared consisted of 38 articles, drawn up by Hans de 
Ries at the request of Smyth’s company. Translated into English, it was signed by Smyth and his 
friends and laid before the Mennonite congregation. It was enlarged by its author and put forth 


ANABAPTIST PRINCIPLES 5 


Christ,! according to the spirit and the truth, the heirs of the promises, truly saved 
from the hypocrites and dissemblers. 

‘*23. In this holy church hath God ordained the ministers of the Gospel, the 
doctrines of the holy Word, the use of the holy sacraments, the oversight of the poor, 
and the ministers of the same offices; furthermore, the exercise of brotherly admoni- 
tion and correction, and, finally, the separating of the impenitent ; which holy ordi- 
nances, contained in the Word of God, are to be administered according to the 
contents thereof. 

‘*24. And like as a body consisteth of divers parts, and every part hath its own 
proper work, seeing every part is not a hand, eye, or foot; so it is also in the church 
of God; for although every believer is a member of the body of Christ, yet is not 
every one therefore a teacher, elder, or deacon, but only such who are orderly 
appointed to such offices. Therefore, also, the administration of the said offices or 
duties pertaineth only to those that are ordained thereto, and not to every particular 
common person. 

‘*25. The vocation or election of the said officers is performed by the church, 
with fasting, and prayer to God; for God knoweth the heart; he is amongst the 
faithful who are gathered together in his name; and by his Holy Spirit doth so 
govern the minds and hearts of his people, that he by them bringeth to light and 
propoundeth whom he knoweth to be profitable to his church. 

**26. And although the election and vocation to the said offices is performed 
by the foresaid means, yet, nevertheless, the investing into the said service is accom- 
plished by the elders of the church® through the laying on of hands. 

‘‘29. The Holy Baptism is given unto these in the name of the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Ghost, which hear, believe, and with penitent heart receive the 
doctrines of the Holy Gospel. For such hath the Lord Jesus commanded to be 
baptized, and no unspeaking children. 

**33. The church discipline, or external censures, is also an outward handling ® 
among the believers, whereby the impenitent sinner, after Christian admonition and 
reproof, is severed, by reason of his sins, from the communion of the saints for his 
future good; and the wrath of God is denounced against him until the time of his 
contrition and reformation. ; 

‘“35. Worldly authority or magistracy is a necessary ordinance of God, ap- 
pointed and established for the preservation of the common estate, and of a good, 
natural, politic life, for the reward of the good and the punishing of the evil: we 
acknowledge ourselves obnoxious, and bound by the Word of God to fear, honour, 
and show obedience to the magistrates in all causes not contrary to the Word of 


for the use of the Dutch probably in 1610, apparently with the approval of Gerrits. Though in no 
sense binding upon the Mennonite body, it has been their most venerated expression of faith. A 
full Latin version of the enlarged form is given by Schyn, /7storza, etc., Amsterdam, 1723, pp. 
172-220, who remarks: ‘‘Ecce . . . Con/fesstonemz, non solum fere per sesqui seculum apud 
plurimas & maximas illorum Ecclesias, in Belgio pro /ovmuda Consensus inter Waterlandos sic 
dictos habitam,”’ etc.. On the great doctrinal controversy which agitated Holland at the time of its 
composition the Confession is Arminian, but that which here concerns us is its view of church 
polity, in which it is representative of all Mennonite teaching and the theories doubtless which were 
current among the Anabaptists who found settlement during the previous half-century in England. 
The extracts are from the English version signed by Smyth and his associates in 1609, and printed 
by Evans, /ézd., 1: 245-252. It is substantially and almost verbally identical with the revised 
form given by Schyn. 

1 |. e., the righteous are the only true members, etc. 

2 Schyn, ‘‘a Senioribus populi coram Ecclesia.” 3 Jbzd., ‘Sactio.”’ 


6 BROWNE'S CONGREGATIONALISM 


the Lord. We are obliged to pray God Almighty for them, and to thank the Lord 
for good reasonable magistrates, and to yield unto them, without murmuring, beseem- 
ing tribute, toll, and tax. This office of the worldly authority the Lord Jesus hath 
not ordained in his spiritual kingdom, the church of the New Testament, nor 
adjoined to the offices of his church. Neither hath he called his disciples or 
followers to be worldly kings, princes, potentates, or magistrates; neither hath he 
burdened or charged them to assume such offices, or to govern the world in such 
a worldly manner; much less hath he given a law to the members of his church 
which is agreeable to such office or government. 

‘36, Christ, the King and Lawgiver of the New Testament, hath prohibited 
Christians the swearing of oaths; therefore it is not permitted that the faithful of 
the New Testament should swear at all.” 

It is clear, therefore, that there were prevalent in the domain 
of Protestantism, during the latter half of the sixteenth century, 
two radically differing theories of the church,— the one supported 
by the leading reformers and their successors and upheld by the 
civil authorities, but representing nevertheless a partial rather 
than a complete application of the principles of the Reformation; 
the other maintained with many vagaries, and much that was 
positively fanatical, by men of little education or social position, 
subject to almost universal persecution,’ but representing, how- 
ever mistakenly, an attempt to apply the principles of the Word 
of God not merely to doctrine but to every feature of polity 
and life. 

Though the Anabaptists flourished in Holland, they made 
few direct disciples during the sixteenth century on English soil. 
Yet they were present in the island and cannot have been with- 
out some influence. After the religious and political tyranny of 
Philip II. had begun its reign of terror in the Netherlands, the 
Dutch and Walloons, who had always found in the eastern coun- 
ties of England a favorite field for immigration, flocked across the 
North Sea in almost astounding numbers. By 1562 these exiles 
on English soil numbered 30,000. Six years later they embraced 
some 5,225 of the population of London, while in the cities of 
the eastern coast they were yet more largely represented, forming 
a majority of the people of Norwich in 1587, and making a con- 





1 The one exception was the protection of the Dutch Anabaptists by William of Orange. 
Campbell, Puritan, 1: 247, 248. 
2 These figures are from Campbell, 7d7d., 488. 


ANABAPTISTS IN ENGLAND 7 


spicuous element in the population of Dover, Sandwich, and other 
important towns. Of course these thousands of Hollanders were 
not to any large extent Anabaptists; but there were Anabaptists 
among them,’ and probably many more than openly appeared, 
for to own the sentiments of the hated sect under the reign of 
Elizabeth was to be liable to death at the stake. It seems not 
unreasonable to suppose that their views, modified and partially 
presented, may have, more or less unconsciously, become part of 
the thinking of the more zealous of the English seekers after a 
fuller reformation with whom they were brought in contact. But 
while it is certainly within the bounds of probability to admit 
such a degree of influerice on the part of the Dutch Anabaptists 
on English religious thought in the eastern counties during the 
last quarter of the sixteenth century, it should not be forgotten 
that the New Testament was before the English reader as well as 
in the hands of the Dutch Anabaptist, and that its pages might 
convey the same lesson independently to the English student. 
Certainly the early English Congregationalists had no conscious- 
ness that their views were derived from any other source than the 
New Testament; and while there is much in their history, and 
especially in the geography of their origin, to make it probable 
that some considerable infiltration of Anabaptist thought aided in 
shaping their interpretations of the Scripture; they were more than 
mere successors or offshoots of the Anabaptists of the Continent.’ 

Some attempt to realize a further reformation in directions 
looking toward later Congregationalism may have been made by 
Richard Fitz and his associates at London in 1567, but the first 


Englishman® to proclaim Congregational principles in writing was 


1 Qn the occasion when the two whose burning in 1575 has already been noticed were 
arrested in London, twenty-five others were taken into custody. 

2 Mr. Douglas Campbell, in his suggestive work, The Puritan tn Holland, England, and 
America, II: 180, holds strongly that Browne received his ideas directly from the Anabaptists. 
This matter will be further considered later in this chapter. 

3 The origin of Congregationalism as an organized polity has been frequently attributed, and 
notably by Waddington (Congregational History, 1200-1567, London, 1869, pp. 742-745), to a com- 
pany broken up by the government at Plumbers’ Hall, June 19, 1567. But though the evidence of 
their opposition to the existing state of the Church of England is ample, and it seems certain that 
they had adopted Separatist principles and chosen their own ministry, their Congregationalism was 
yet very rudimentary. See Punchard, Ast. of Cong., Boston [1865], Il: 454-459; Dexter, Cog. 
as seen, pp. 114, 115, 631-4; Scott, Pilgrim Fathers neither Puritans nor Persecutors, London, 


8 BROWNE'S CONGREGATIONALISM 


Robert Browne,’ a man of sincere purpose, at least in early life; 
but one whose erratic disposition and final reconciliation with the 
English Establishment have cost him the personal repute which 
would otherwise have been his. Possessed of only ordinary ability, 
he nevertheless saw some truths clearly which had been ignored 
by the ecclesiastical teachers of his age. 

Browne was born about the middle of the sixteenth century, 
of a family related to that of Elizabeth’s great statesman, Lord 
Burghley. His education was at Corpus Christi College, Cam- 
bridge, an institution which he entered in 1570. The university 
was already strongly Puritan, and under the vigorous teaching of 
the greatest of the early Puritans, Thomas Cartwright,’ was filled 
with the idea that a further reformation of the English Church 
was needful,—a reform to be brought about, in his estimation, 


1891: C. R. Palmer, Historical Address, before New Haven Cong. Club, Oct., 1892, New Haven, 
1893; MacKennal, Story of the Eng. Separatists, London, 1893; Adeney, Ch. zz the Prisons, in 
Early Independents, London, 1893. 

1 The discoveries and investigations of the late Dr. Dexter have so re-made the portrait of 
Browne that all previous literature regarding him is of secondary value. The student will do well, 
therefore, to consult Dexter, Congregationalism as seen, etc., pp. 61-128. The article on Browne 
by Aug. Jessopp in the Dictionary of National Biography, VII: 57-61, is also of value. The 
main facts of his life, so far as not related in the text, are as follows: — He was born, probably in 
1550, at Tolethorpe, Rutlandshire. After his student life in Cambridge, and chaplaincy to the 
Duke of Norfolk, he taught school till 1578: then followed his second period of Cambridge study, 
his preaching and silencing by the bishop, and his full adoption of Congregational principles and 
settlement in Norwich about 1580. Late in 1581, probably, he went to Holland, and in 1582 pub- 
lished the books with which we have to do. Quarrels distressed his church in Middelburg, and asa 
result Browne and a few followers went from Holland to Scotland in 1583. At Edinburgh he was 
received with much disfavor by the Presbyterian authorities. By the summer of 1584 he was appar- 
ently back in London, having failed to found a permanent congregation either in Norwich, Holland, 
or Scotland. Here in London he was imprisoned, as he had been repeatedly before; but here, as 
elsewhere, he was saved from the most serious consequences of his opposition to the English eccle- 
siastical system by his relationship to Lord Burghley. Released from prison, he seems to have gone 
to Northampton in 1586, and was then excommunicated by the Bishop of Peterborough. He was 
now, it would appear, utterly discouraged. Dr. Dexter held, with much show of reason, that his 
mind had become affected by his long disappointments and imprisonments. At all events, he be- 
came reconciled to the Establishment late in 1586, and was appointed master of a grammar school 
in Southwark, a position which he held till September, 1591, when, having been restored to the 
ministry of the Church of England, he received from his ever kindly relative, Lord Burghley, the 
living of Achurch cum Thorpe. Here he ministered till near his death, an event which occurred 
in Northampton jail (when he was a prisoner probably in consequence of a debt) sometime between 
June, 1631, and November, 1633. His iater life was wholly insignificant and comports well with the: 
view that he was a broken-down man. 

2 Cartwright was about forty years old when Browne entered the university and was at 
the height of his fame and influence. He had been identified with Cambridge as student, fellow, 
and teacher since 1547. In 1569 he had been made professor of divinity; but his Puritan views. 
were at once attacked by the Anglicans, led by Whitgift, the later archbishop, and he was com- 
pelled to relinquish his professorship in December, 1570, and his fellowship in September, 1571. 
This discussion must have stirred Browne profoundly. 


BROWNE'S SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT 9 


however, from within and not by separation from its fold. Browne 
soon combined the duties of a student’s life with the occupation 
of a chaplain in the family of the Duke of Norfolk; but here 
he showed opinions at variance with those of the ecclesiastical 
authorities, the exact nature of which it is impossible to affirm, 
but which were probably Puritan rather than fully Congregational. 
The duke, at all events, sympathized with him sufficiently to plead 
in his behalf that a chaplaincy was a privileged office beyond the 
reach of the ordinary processes of ecclesiastical law. Whether his 
patron’s intervention was sufficient to check further proceedings 
in Browne’s case or not does not appear; but for about three years 
thereafter he taught school, apparently at Southwark, preaching 
also to such as he could gather in illegal meetings in a gravel- 
pit at Islington. But desire for further study drew him back to 
Cambridge, and, as was natural for an earnest young Puritan min- 
ister, he entered the household theological school of Rev. Richard 
Greenham, an eminent Puritan of Dry Drayton, not far from the 
university town. Here he was encouraged to preach in pulpits of 
the Church of England where the hearers were of Puritan sympa- 
thies, and such was the favor with which he was regarded that he 
took charge of a church in Cambridge itself. Here it was, appar- 
ently, that he underwent the spiritual struggle which led him to 
Congregational views." The church to which he had preached for 
about six months desired him to remain, but Browne’s Puritan 
scruples regarding bishops had made him feel that an appoint- 
ment dependent upon one of their order was no proper ministry. 
The conviction now came to him that the all-inclusive member- 
ship of the Church of England was well-nigh fatal to real piety. 
The only course for those who would seek a full Christian life was 
to separate from it and unite among themselves. He felt that 
“the kingdom off God Was not to be begun by whole parishes, but 


1 Dr. Dexter, whose admirable account of Browne is the source of the facts of his biography 
above given, was the discoverer of an undated little work by Browne himself, A 7rve and Short 
Declaration, both of the Gathering and TIoyning Together of Certaine Persons: and also of 
the Lamentable Breach and Division which fell Amongst Them, which is really a ‘spiritual 
autobiography.’’ A manuscript copy is in the Dexter Collection, now in the possession of Yale 
University, and a reprint has been issued, without date or place, [by Dr, Dale?] © 

2 


IO BROWNE’S CONGREGATIONALISM 


rather off the worthiest, Were they never so fewe.”’ Naturally 
such views were offensive to his ecclesiastical superiors, and the 
result was that Browne was silenced. 

Thus far Browne’s primary desire seems to have been the de- 
velopment of a more earnest spiritual life. He had followed the 
Puritan path and he had gone far beyond Puritanism into a belief 
in the necessity of actual separation from the Establishment. But 
he had not yet fully thought out the constitution of the purified 
church for which he longed. It is interesting to observe that in 
this transition period, after he had been silenced by the bishop, he 
learned that in the neighboring county of Norfolk, a county in 
which Dutch artisans were present in large numbers and presuma- 
bly Dutch Anabaptists among them, were persons who were eager 
for religious reform in the direction toward which his own thoughts 
turned, and he resolved to go to them. Before this determination 
was put into practice, however, an acquaintance, Robert Harrison,’ 
who was also to be a fellow-laborer with Browne, came to Cam- 
bridge from Norwich, the principal town of Norfolk. With him, 
probably in 1580, Browne removed to Norwich, and here in con- 
versation with Harrison, in study of the Scripture, and it may be 
also through contact with Anabaptist views (though on this point 
proof is lacking), Browne fully thought out his system of church- 
government. Here, too, at some uncertain time in 1580 or 1581,° 
he formed with others whom he gathered about him the first Con- 
gregational Church of the long series which has continued since 
that day. 

So conspicuous action in defiance of constituted ecclesiastical 
authorities could not escape notice, the more so that Browne ex- 
tended his field of preaching as far as Bury Saint Edmunds.* By 





1 Trve and Short Declaration, p.6; Dexter, Cong. as seen, p. 67. 

2 Robert Harrison had entered Cambridge university in 1564, he had graduated B. A. at Cor- 
pus Christi in 1567, and M. A. in 1572. After the latter graduation, at some uncertain date, he was 
made master of a Norwich hospital. At Norwich, Browne lived in his house. Harrison accompa- 
nied Browne to Middelburg and remained there, probably as pastor, after Browne’s departure. He 
did not long survive, dying about 1585. See Cooper, Athene Cantabrigienses, 11: 177; and Dict. 
National Biography, XXV: 38. 

3 Dexter, Cong. as seen, p. 70. 

4 Bishop Freake of Norwich declared that, apparently at Bury Saint Edmunds, ‘‘the vulgar 
sort of people . . . greatly depended on him, assembling themselves together to the number of an 
hundred at a time in private houses and conventicles to hear him.”’ See quotations in Dexter, p. 70. 


BROWNE'S PUBLICATIONS 1 | 


April, 1581, the bishop of Norwich had taken official cognizance of 
his doings. But the relationship of the young Congregationalist 
to Lord Burghley, and the help extended by that powerful kins- 
man,’ prevented any more serious consequences to Browne than a 
six-months of great personal annoyance. These experiences, how- 
ever, convinced the infant church that it had nothing to hope for 
in England, and therefore after much deliberation, Browne, Harri- 
son, and a part of the Norwich company emigrated to the city of 
Middelburg in the Dutch province of Zeland,? probably in the au- 
tumn of 1581. It would appear that some of the Norwich flock 
remained behind and continued a Congregational organization, for 
a time at least, on English soil.? 

It was soon after his arrival in Holland that Browne put forth, 
with the pecuniary aid of Harrison, some time in 1582, three tracts? 
designed primarily to further his views in England, and from one 
of which our statement of his principles is drawn. These little 
works were sent to England, and in spite of a proclamation in the 
name of Queen Elizabeth forbidding their circulation,’ they were 
scattered abroad; at Bury Saint Edmunds they were distributed 
through the agency of two of Browne’s followers, John Coppin and 
Elias Thacker, who were at the time in not very strict imprison- 
ment for their religious opinions, but who for their connection 
with these tracts were condemned and hanged in the summer of 
Tekan ing 

With Browne’s further fortunes we have little to do. His own 
impulsive temperament, and the value placed on church discipline 
by the early Separatists, led to quarrel in his Middelburg flock, a 
quarrel which resulted in his leaving Harrison and the majority of 


his congregation on Dutch soil, and going with a few followers to 





1 Burghley had no sympathy with Browne’s views on church-government. 

2 Dexter, Cong. as seen, p. 72. 

8 Dexter, pp. 73, 74, shows that a Congregational church existed at Norwich as late as 1603, 
which was regarded as an “elder sister’? by the church formed at London in 1592. 

1 Beside the Booke which sheweth, etc., from which our selections are taken, these tracts 
were A Treatise upon the 23. of Matthewe, and A Treatise of Reformation vvithout Tarying 
Sor ante. 

5 Given June 30, 1583. In full, Dexter, p. 75. The tracts were described as “sundry sedi- 
tious, scismaticall, and erronious printed Bookes and libelles, tending to the deprauing of the Eccle- 
siastical gouernment established within this Realme.”’ 

8 See Dexter, pp. 208-210; Campbell Purvztan, II: 182, 183. 


12 BROWNE'S CONGREGATIONALISM 


Scotland late in 1583. Here he found the opposition of the Pres- 
byterian authorities as fatal to his peace as that of the bishops of 
England had been; and, after some time vainly spent in various 
Scotch towns, he returned to England, once more to meet defeat, 
with the added pain of imprisonment. Broken down in body and 
mind at last, it would appear, he made his peace with the Church 
of England in 1586, and through the kindness of Lord Burghley, he 
obtained, in 1591, the rectorship of Achurch cum Thorpe, in 
which office he passed the forty remaining years of his now 
uneventful life. 

The system which Browne laid down in the three treatises of 
1582, is imperfectly worked out in detail, but it nevertheless pre- 
sents with great clearness the essential features of modern Con- 
gregationalism. As Dr. Dexter has shown,’ the starting point in 
Browne’s thinking was not a desire to establish a novel polity, but 
to foster the spiritual development of the believer by his separa- 
tion from communion with the non-faithful whom all the State 
churches allowed a place in the church. He broke with the 
Church of England primarily, because its bishops and other 
authorities approved its general, and, as Browne thought, anti- 
Christian, inclusion of all non-excommunicate baptized persons, 
an inclusiveness, which, to his way of thinking, made the real ele- 
vation of the Establishment in spiritual tone impossible. He 
broke with the Puritans, for, though they desired a spiritual refor- 
mation as sincerely as he, they would wait for it from the hand of 
the civil magistrate ;? and Browne, first of English writers, set 
forth the Anabaptist doctrine that the civil ruler has no control 
over the spiritual affairs of the church, that church and state are 
separate realms. His views on this important question were 


expressed in the clearest fashion: ® 


‘‘ Vet may they [magistrates] doo nothing concerning the Church, but onelie ciu- 





1 Cong. as seen, Pp. 96-104. 

2 See his work of 1582, A Treatise of Reformation vvithout Tarying for anie [i. e., with- 
out waiting for the civil authorities to act, as the Puritans wished], azd of the wickednesse of 
those Preachers which will not reforme till the Magistrate commaunde or conpell then. 

3 I have given this quotation at length because the point is not so clearly shown in the selec- 
tions on a later page. It is from the Treatise of Reformation, p.12. See also Dexter, pp. ror, 


102. 


THE CHURCH AND ITS OFFICERS 13 


ilie, and as ciuile Magistrates; that is, they haue not that authoritie ouer the church, 
as to be Prophetes or Priestes, or spiritual Kings, as they are Magistrates ouer the 
same: but onelie to rule the common wealth in all outwarde Iustice, to maintaine the 
right welfare and honor therof with outward power, bodily punishment, & ciuil 
forcing of mé. And therfore also because the church is in a common wealth, it is 
of their charge: that is concerning the outward prouision & outward iustice, they 
are to looke to it; but to cOpell religion, to plant churches by power, and to force a 
submission to Ecclesiastical gouernement by lawes & penalties, belongeth not to 
them,” ! 

If, then, a full spiritual life in a community was impossible 
under the existing government of the Church of England, and if 
it was not only useless but wrong to wait for the reform of that 
Establishment, as the Puritans were waiting, at the hand of the 
civil authorities, how were the Christians, who must thus of neces- 
sity separate themselves from their old churchly connections, to be 
organized into new societies? The model for their organization 
Browne found in the New Testament.? The believers should be 
united to God and one to another by a covenant, entered into, not 
by compulsion, but willingly. Such a body, so united, and recog- 
nizing their obligations to God the Father and to Christ as their 
law-giver and ruler, area church. Of this church Christ is the 
head,’ and his powers and graces are for the use of every member,’ 
There are officers of divine appointment, some of temporary use to 
aid all churches, apostles, prophets, and evangelists, who belong to 
the past rather than the present ;* and others designated as the 
abiding officers of individual churches, the pastor, teacher, elders, 
deacons, and widows, who “haue their seuerall charge in one 
Churche onely.”* Yet these officers do not stand between Christ 
and the ordinary believer, they “ haue the grace & office of teaching 
and guiding ;”’ but “ euerie one of the church is made a Kinge, a 
Priest, and a Prophet vnder Christ, to vpholde and further the 
kingdom of God.”* The offices of Christ are for the use of each 
member of the church, as well as for those who “teach and 


guide” it.® It is this immediateness of relationship between 





1 It is interesting to notice that Harrison did not share Browne’s view on this point, Dexter, 
p. 85. 

2 Compare extracts from the Booke which Sheweth at the close of this chapter, Answer 35. 

3 Jbid., Ans. 36-38. 4 Jb7d., Ans. 44. 5 Jé¢d., Ans. 55. 

8 167d., 52. ONG Take Ae We & [bid., 50, 55: ® Jbéid., 56-58. 


14 BROWNE'S CONGREGATIONALISM 


Christ, the head of the church and each member, that, as Dr. 
Dexter has pointed out,’ makes Browne’s polity essentially though 
unintentionally democratic, and that gives it a closer resemblance 
in some features to the purely democratic Congregationalism of 
the present century than to the more aristocratic, one might 
almost say semi-Presbyterianized, Congregationalism of Barrowe 
and the founders of New England. 

Church officers are to be chosen by the congregations which 
they serve, and ordination is to be at the hands of the “ elders,” 
an expression which Browne uses as signifying in this connection 
the “ forwardest’”’ or most worthy of a congregation, rather than a 
particular order of church officers.2, Unlike the teachers of the 
prelatical churches, Browne held that the essence of a minister’s 
claim to office lay not in the imposition of hands in ordination, but 
in his inward calling by divine providence and his choice by the 
people of his charge. Among the duties of a church officer, dis- 
cipline had a large place,’ but the ordinary member was in no way 
relieved from responsibility regarding his brethren, he, too, must 
“watch” .and “trie out all wickednes.”* In fact, the whore 
conception entertained by Browne of the position of a church 
officer was, that he should be a leader and example to his 
brethren rather than a master and judge. 

Browne saw that not only individuals within a local church, 
but the local churches as separate bodies had duties one to another. 
His theory on this point was not elaborated in detail, but he recog- 
nized clearly the propriety of “‘synodes,” or councils,— the “meet- 
ings of sundrie churches: which are when the weaker churches 
seeke helpe of the stronger, for deciding or redressing of matters 
or else the stronger looke to them for redresse.”’ ® 

It is interesting to note that Browne perceived that his theory 
of the relation of an officer to a church was applicable, in large 
measure, to civil society. Though he recognized that the claims 
of some to civil office were based, as one element, on “ parentage 
and birth,’ he held that all in rightful authority were so by the 





1 Cong. as seen, pp. 106, 107. 2 Booke which Sheweth, Ans. 117, 119, also 51. 
3 Tbid., 110, 4 Jbid., 126. bo /0td., 56, 8 Lézd., 51. 


SQURCE OF HIS SYSTEM Iv 


¥ 


command of God and “agreement of men.” His picture of the 
covenant-relation of men in the church, under the immediate soy- 
eeerenty oO: God, he extended to the state; and) it led him as 
directly, and probably as unintentionally, to democracy in the one 
field as in the other. His theory implied that all governors should 
rule by the will of the governed, and made the basis of the state 
on its human side essentially a compact.’ 

Whence were these views of Browne derived? Clearly from 
the New Testament, in whose pages he thought he saw delineated 
the pattern of the church which God designed. But whether he 
was brought to this system of polity by unaided study of the Scrip- 
tures and thought upon the state of the Church of England; or 
whether his theories and interpretations were assisted by some 
knowledge of the beliefs of the Dutch Anabaptists, is a question 
not so easy to answer. ‘The late Dr. Dexter held strongly to the 
position that Browne owed nothing to Anabaptist influences and 
that he was a disciple of no one.?— Mr. Douglas Campbell main- 
tains, on the other hand, that Browne derived one of his most im- 
portant doctrines,— that of the separation of Church and State, — 
from the Anabaptists ;? and the inference is that his debt to these 
Dutch exiles was extensive. Much may be said in defense of 
either of these views.. Browne held, as we have seen, that it was 
the duty of Christians to separate from communicns where 
non-Christians were tolerated. This was a _ position held 
by the Anabaptists.4 He would not wait for reformation at the 
hand of the civil magistrate with the Puritans, for he believed that 
the magistrate had no right to coerce men’s consciences; and this 
was the view also of the Anabaptists.? And when we look at more 
particular features of Browne’s system we find that his theories of 
the independence of the local congregation, its right to choose its 
own officers, and the fundamental necessity of a vigorous exercise 
of discipline, were all exemplified among the Anabaptists. Then 
it will be rememberéd that when Browne had first determined on 


1 [bid., 114-118. 2 Cong. as seen, p. 103. 3 Puritan in Holland, etc., 11: 179, 180, 200, 


4See axtfe, p. 3. 
5 See Schyn, Histori@ Mennonttarum Plenior Deductio, Amsterdam, 1729, pp. 147, 221, 
275, etc. Ye 
Lo 3 ie. 
DS 


16 BROWNE'S CONGREGATIONALISM 


separation, he heard that some far advanced in religious reforma- 
tion were in Norfolk, and planned to join them;’ and he worked 
out his system in conversation with a friend, Robert Harrison, who 
had been sometime a resident of Norwich, and put it into practice 
at Norwich and probably at Bury Saint Edmunds also. These 
were places filled with Dutch refugees, and in both he found a 
considerable following among the lower classes.?, There Anabap- 
tist ideas must have been considerably disseminated. These con- 
siderations lend weight to the views of Mr. Campbell. 

But, on the other hand, Browne utterly rejected the great 
Anabaptist tenet of believers’ baptism.* Furthermore, unlike the 
Anabaptists, he held that oaths were sometimes not only lawful 
but a “speciall furtheraunce of the kingdome of God.’”* He evi- 
dently saw nothing unbecoming to a Christian in the tenure of 
civil office;® and, moreover, he would not have hesitated to bear 
arms.* He expressly repudiated the charge that his doctrine 
regarding the power of magistrates deserved the name of 
Anabaptist.7. And though a strong geographical argument 
may be drawn in support of probable contact with these Christians 
of the Dutch dispersion, Browne’s candid spiritual autobiog- 
raphy® gives no hint of any such indebtedness, and he mentions 
no Dutch names among his supporters.® It is safe to affirm that 
he had no conscious indebtedness to the Anabaptists. 

Yet if a balance is to be struck between the views of Dr. Dex- 
ter and Mr. Campbell, I venture with some diffidence to hold that 
the truth lies between. It is clear that Browne belonged in large 
measure to that great radical party which felt that the early reform- 
ers of prominence had not carried their principles to their logical 
or Scriptural result. Of this party the chief representatives were 
the Anabaptists; and however Browne may have reached his theo- 
ries, it is with the radical reformers that he must be classed. It 





1 Ante, p. Io. 2 Ante, p. 10. 

3 See the selections from the Booke which Sheweth, on-later page, Ans. 4o. 

4 Jb¢d., 110. 5 /b¢d., 112-118. 8 Booke which Sheweth, p. too. 

7‘“* They charge vs as Anabaptistes & denying Magistrates, because we set not vp them, nor 
the Magistrates, aboue Christ Iesus and his glorious kingdome.’’— Treatise of Reformation, p. 
13. See Dexter, p. 103. 

8 The Trve and Short Declaration. ® Compare Dexter, p. 73. 


SOURCE OF HIS SYSTEM LG 


is plain also that many of Browne’s most characteristic views had 
been already advanced by the Anabaptists. But it is no less 
evident that Browne differed from the Anabaptists on points of 
great importance, and had no conscious connection with them. 
Yet certain of their views may have circulated much more 
widely in the manufacturing cities of eastern England than their 
acknowledged disciples penetrated; and Browne may have uncon- 
sciously absorbed much from this atmosphere, taking into his own 
thinking such truths as were acceptable to his own study and 
speculation. It may well be thus that Browne was really indebted 
to the Anabaptists for some features of his system, though hon- 
estly believing it to be the product of his own study of the Word 
of God. 

But while we may admit thus much regarding the possible in- 
debtedness of Browne to older thinkers of the radical school, we 
must recognize that he made the polity which he elaborated 
wholly his own. Its details were not yet fully developed, but 
its great outlines were there, and the system of Browne can 
be mistaken for no other of the polities of the Christian church. 
It had a definiteness and a logical consistency which the Anabap- 
tists had not attained. It based the local church on a definite 
covenant, entered into by the believers with God and with one 
another, more clearly than they, thus affording a logical and Scrip- 
tural foundation for the existence and obligations of the local fel- 
lowship. It showed, at least in principle, that the local independ- 
ence of the individual congregation is consistent with a real and 
efficient unity with other churches. It steered a safe course be- 
tween the sacrifice of the self-government of the local church for 
the sake of a strong central authority which is the evil feature of 
all systems from Romanism to Presbyterianism, and the abandon- 
ment of real mutual accountability between churches which had 
been the vulnerable point of the polity of the Anabaptists. Though 
he proved unfaithful himself to the beliefs which he preached and 
for which he suffered, Robert Browne must be accounted the father 


of modern Congregationalism. 


18 BROWNE’S CONGREGATIONALISM 





EXTRACTS FROM BROWNE’sS “BOOKE WHICH SHEWETH THE 
AND MANNERS OF ALL TRUE CHRISTIANS,” ETC., 





LIFE 


1 


MIDDELBURG, 1582. 


The state of Christians. 


[2] 


The state of Heathen. 





Christians. Thetr knowledge. The Godhead. 


Heathen. Their ignorance. False Gods. 








; Herefore are we called the 
people of God and Chris- 
tians? 
Secause that by a willing Couec= 
naunt made with our God, we are 
ynoder the gouernement of God 
and Christe, and thereby do Icade 
a godly and Christian life, 











: Llerefore are the Heathen 

forsaken of God, and be 
the cursed people of the worlde? 
Because they forsake or refuse 
the Lords couenaunt and gou- 
ernement: and therefore they 
leade an vngodly and worldly 
life. 


1 Browne’s Booke embraces 185 Questions, each with answer, counter-question, definition, 


and division as above given, 


Each series extends over parts of two opposite pages. 


This first 


question, with its train of subdivisions, may serve as an example of the whole book, but ‘so little 
additional is contained in the repetitious matter that from this point onward I give only the ques- 


tions and answers, omitting counter-questions, definitions, and divisions. 


I have also changed the. 


type from here onward from Old English to Roman. 














[Questions 2 to 34 relate to the knowledge of God by men, His nature, attri- 


butes, providence, the fall of man and salvation by Christ. 


These’ doctrines are 


treated in the usual Calvinistic sense, and present nothing peculiar to Browne. ] 


[20° | 35 


What ts our calling and leading unto this happines 2? 


In the new Testament our calling is in plainer maner: as by 
the first planting and gathering of the church vnder one kinde of 


gouernement. 


Also bya further plating of the church according to that 


gouernement. 


But in the olde Testament, our calling was by shadowes and 


ceremonies, as among the lewes. 


36 Howe must the churche be first planted and gathered under one 


kinde of gouernement ? 





1 The bracketed numbess indicate the pages of Browne’s work. 


2 I. e., the happiness purchased by Christ. 


EXTRACTS FROM BROWNE'S BOOK 19 




















Definitions. Diutsions. [3] 
Christians. Thetr knovuledg:. The Godhead. 

1Christians are a companie or number of ' By knowing 
beleeuers, which by a willing couenaunt God and the 
made with their God, are vnder the gou- Christians dueties of 
ernement of God and Christ, and keepe whiche godlinesse. 
his Lawes in one holie communion: Be- should leade 
cause they are redeemed by Christe vnto a godlte life 
holines & happines for euer, from whiche By keeping 
they were fallen by the sinne of Adam. those dueties. 


First by a couenant and condicion, made on Gods behalfe. 

Secondlie by a couenant and condicion made on our behalfe. 

Thirdlie by vsing the sacrament of Baptisme to seale those 
condicions, and couenantes. 

37 What ts the couenant, or condicion on Gods behalfe ? 

His promise to be our God and sauiour, if we forsake not his 
gouernement by disobedience. 

Also his promise to be the God of our seede, while we are his 
people. 

Also the gifte of his spirit to his children as an inwarde calling 
and furtheraunce of godlines. 

[22] 38 What ts the couenant or condicion on our behalfe ? 

We must offer and geue vp our selues to be of the church and 
people of God. 

We must likewise offer and geue vp our children and others, 


20 BROWNE'S CONGREGATIONALISM 


being vnder age, if they be of our householde and we haue full 
power ouer them. . 

We must make profession, that we are his people, by sub- 
mitting our selues to his lawes and gouernement. 

39 How must Baptisme be vsed, as a seale of this couenaunt ? 

They must be duelie presented, and offered to God and the 
church, which are to be Baptised. 

They must be duelie receiued vnto grace and fellowship. 

40 How must they be presented and offered ? 

The children of the faithfull, though they be infantes are to 
be offered to God and the church, that they may be Baptised. 

Also those infantes or children which are of the householde of 
the faithfull, and vnder their full power. 

Also all of discretion which are not baptised, if they holde 
the Christian profession, and shewe forth the same. 

[24| gz How must they be receaued vnto grace and felloshippe ? 

The worde must be duely preached in an holie assemblie. 

The signe or Sacrament must be applied thereto. 

42 How must the word be preached ? 

The preacher being called and meete thereto, must shewe the 
redemption of christians by Christ, and the promises receaued by 
faith as before. 

Also they must shewe the right vse of that redemption, in 
suffering with Christ to dye vnto sinne by repétance. 

Also the raising and quickning again vpon repentance. 

43 Howe must the signe be applied thereto ? 

The bodies of the parties baptised, must be washed w' water, 
or sprinckled or dipped, in the name of the Father, and of y° 
Sonne, and of the holy Ghost, vnto the forgeuenes of sinnes, and 
dying thereto in one death and burial with Christ. 

The preacher must pronounce thé to be baptised into y* bodie 
and gouernement of Christ, to be taught & to professe his lawes, 
that by his mediatio & victorie, they might rise againe with him 
vnto holines & happines for euer. The church must geue thankes 
for the partie baptised, and praye for his further instruction, and 
traininge vnto saluation. 

[26] 4¢ How must it [the church] be further builded, accord- 
ange vnto churche gouernement ? 

First by communion of the graces & offices in the head of y® 
church, which is Christ. 

Secondlly, by communion of the graces and offices in the 
bodie, which is the church of Christ. 


EXTRACTS FROM BROWNE'S BOOK PM | 


Thirdly, by vsing the Sacrament of the Lords supper, as a 
seale of this communion. 

45 Howe hath the churche the communion of those graces & 
offices, which are tn Christ? 

It hath the vse of his priesthoode: because he is the high 
Priest thereof. 

Also of his prophecie: because he is the Prophet thereof. 

Also of his kingdome and gouernement: because he is the 
kynge and Lord thereof. 

46 Whatvse hath the churche of hits priesthoode ? 

Thereby he is our mediatour, and we present and offer vppe 
our praiers in his name, because by his intreatie, our sinnes are 
forgeuen. 

Also he is our iustification, because by his attonement we are 
iustified. 

Also he is our sanctification, because he partaketh vnto vs his 
holines and spirituall graces. 

[28] 47 What vse hath the church of his prophecie ? 

He him selfe hath taught vs, and geuen vs his lawes. 

He preacheth vnto vs by his worde & message in the mouthes 
of his messengers. 

He appoynteth to euerie one their callinges and dueties. 

48 What vse hath the churche of his kinglie office ? 

By that he executeth his lawes: First, by ouerseeing and try- 
ing out wickednes. 

Also by priuate or open rebuke, of priuate or open offenders. 

Also by separation of the wilfull, or more greeuous offenders. 

[30] 49 What vse hath the churche of the graces and offices 
under Christ? 

It hath those which haue office of teaching and guiding. 

Also those which haue office of cherishing and releeuing the 
afflicted & poore. 

Also it hath the graces of all the brethren and people to doo 
good withall. 

50 Who haue the grace & office of teaching and guiding ? 

Some haue this charge and office together, which can not be 
sundred. 

Some haue their seueral charge ouer manie churches. 

Some haue charge but in one church onlie. 

51 How haue some thetr charge and office together ? 

There be Synodes or meetings of sundrie churches: which are 
when the weaker churches seeke helpe of the stronger, for decid- 


22 BROWNE'S CONGREGATIONALISM 


ing or redressing of matters: or else the stronger looke to them for 
redresse. 

There is also prophecie, or meetings for the vse of euerie 
mans gift, in talk or reasoning, or exhortation and doctrine. 

There is the Eldershippe, or meetings of the most forwarde 
and wise, for lookinge to matters. 

32| 52 Who haue their seueral charge ouer many churches ? 

Apostles had charge ouer many churches. 

Likewise Prophetes, which had their reuelations or visions. 

Likewise helpers vnto these, as Euagelistes, and companions 
of their iourneis. 

53. Who haue their seuerall charge in one Churche onely, to teache 
and guide the same ? 

The Pastour, or he which hath the guift of exhorting, and 
applying especiallie. 

The Teacher, or he whiche hath the guift of teaching espe- 
cially : and lesse guift of exhorting and applying. 

They whiche helpe vnto them both in overseeing and counsail- 
inge, as the most forward or Elders. 

54 Who haue office of cherishing and releeuing the afflicted and 
poore ? 

The Releeuers or Deacons, which are to gather and bestowe 
the church liberalitie. 

The Widowes, which are to praye for the church, with attend- 
aunce to the sicke and afflicted thereof. 

[34| 55 How hath the church the vse of those graces, which al 
y® brethré & people haue to do good withal ? 

Because euerie one of the church is made a Kinge, a Priest, 
and a Prophet vnder Christ, to vpholde and further the kingdom 
of God, & to breake and destroie the kingdome of Antichrist, 
and Satan. 

560 Howe are we made Kinges ? 

We must all watch one an other, and trie out all wickednes. 

We must priuatlie and openlie rebuke, the priuat and open 
offendours. We must also separate the wilful and more greeuous 
offenders, and withdraw our selues fro them, and gather the 
righteous togither. 

57 How are all Christians made Priestes under Christ ? 

They present and offer vp praiers vnto God, for them selues 
& for others. 

They turne others from iniquitie, so that attonement is made 
in Christ unto iustification. 


EXTRACTS FROM BROWNE’S BOOK 23 


In them also and for them others are sanctified, by partaking 
the graces of Christ vnto them. 

58 How are all Christians made prophetes vnder Christ ? 

They teach the lawes of Christ, and talke and reason for the 
maintenaiice of them. 

miey exhorte, moue, and stirre vp to the keeping of his 
lawes. They appoint, counsel, and tell one another their dueties. 

[36] 59 How must we vse the Sacrament of the Lords sup 
as a seale of this communion ? 

There must be a due preparation to receaue the Lords sup- 
per. And a due ministration thereof. 

60 What preparation must there be to receaue the Lords supper ? 

There must be a separation fro those which are none of the 
church, or be vnmeete to receaue, that the worthie may be onely 
receaued; 

All open offences and faultings must be redressed. 

All must proue and examine them selues, that their conscience 
be cleare by faith and repentance, before they receaue. 

Or How ts the supper rightle ministred ? 

The worde must be duelie preached. 

And the signe or sacrament must be rightlie applied thereto. 

[38| 62 How must the worde be dulie preached ? 

The death and tormentes of Christ, by breaking his bodie and 
sheading his bloud for our sinnes, must be shewed by the lawfull 
preacher. 

Also he must shewe the spirtuall vse of the bodie & bloud 
of Christ Jesus, by a spirituall feeding thereon, and growinge into 
it, by one holie communion. 

Also our thankefulnes, and further profiting in godlines vnto 
life everlasting. 

[Zo] 63 How must the signe be applied thereto? 

The preacher must take breade and blesse and geue thankes, 
and thé must he breake it and pronounce it to be the body of 
Christ, which was broken for thé, that by fayth they might feede 
théreon spirituallie & growe into one spiritual bodie of Christ, 
and so he eating thereof him selfe, must bidd them take and eate 
it among them, & feede on Christ in their consciences. 

Likewise also must he take the cuppe and blesse and geue 
thankes, and so pronounce it to be the bloud of Christ in the newe 
Testament, which was shedd for remission of sinnes, that by 
fayth we might drinke it spirtuallie, and so be nourished in one 
snirituall bodie of Christ, all sinne being clensed away, and then he 


24 BROWNE’S CONGREGATIONALISM 


drinking thereof himselfe must bydd them drinke there of like- 
wise and diuide it amog them, and feede on Christe in their con- 
sciences. 

Then muste they all geue thankes praying for their further 
profiting in godlines & vowing their obedience. 


[Questions 64 to 81 relate to the Jewish dispensation ; and Questions 82 to III 
to Christian graces and duties. Two of the latter are of interest. ] 


[68] zzo What speciall furtheraunce of the kingdome of God ts 
ther ? 
In talke to edifie one an other by praising God, and declar- 
ing his will by rebuke or exhortation. 

In doubt and controuersie to sweare by his name on iust occa- 
sions, and to vse lottes. 

Also to keepe the meetinges of the church, and with our 
especiall friends for spirituall exercises. 

riz. What special duties be ther for the Sabbathe ? 

All the generall duties of religion & holines towards God, 
and all the speciall dueties of, worshipping God, & furthering his 
kingdome, must on the Sabbath be performed, with ceasing from 
our callinges & labour in worldlye thinges. Yet such busines 
as can not be putt of tyll the daie after, nor done the daie before, 
may then be done. 


[Questions 112 to 185,—the remainder of the book,—relate to the duties of 
man to man. | 


[7o| 272. Whiche bee the dueties of righteousnes concerning man ? 

They be eyther more bounden, as the generall dueties in 
gouernement betwene gouernours and inferiours: 

Or they be more free, as the generall dueties oijieee. 
dome. 

Or else they be more speciall duties for e¢eche "otters 
name, and for auoyding couetousnes. 

113 ~What be the dueties of Gouernours? 

They consist in the entraunce of that calling. 

And in the due execution thereof by ruling well. 

114. How must Supertours enter and take their calling ? 

By assuraunce of their guift. 

By speciall charge and commaundemente from God to put it 
in practise. 

By agreement of men. 

ils What gift must they haue? 


-_ 


EXTRACTS FROM BROWNE’S BOOK 25 


All Gouernours must haue forwardnes before others, in 
knowledge and godlines, as able to guide. 

And some must haue age and eldershippe. 

Also some must haue parentage and birth. 

[72] 776 What charge or commaundement of God must they 
haue to vse their guift? 

They haue first the speciall commaundement of furthering his 
kingdome, by edifyinge and helping of others, where there is occa- 
sion and persones be worthie. 

Also some speciall prophecie and foretelling of their calling, 
or some generall commaundement for the same. 

Also particular warninges from God vnknowne to the world, 
as in oulde time by vision, dreame, and reuelation, and now by a 
speciall working of Gods spirite in our consciences. 

It7_ ~what agreement must there be of men? 

For Church gouernours there must be an agreement of the 
church. 

For ciuil Magistrates, there must be an agreement of the 
people or Common welth. 

For. Houshoulders, there must be an agreement of the hous- 
houldes. As Husbandes, Parents, Maisters, Teachers, or Schole- 
maisters, &c. 

[74| 278 What agreement must there be of the church, for the 
calling of church gouernours ? 

They must trie their guiftes and godlines. 

They must receyue them by obedience as their guides and 
teachers, where they plante or establish the church. 

They must receyue them by choyse where the church is 
planted.’ 

The agreement also for the calling of ciuill magistrates should 
be like vnto this, excepting their Pompe and outward power, and 
orders established meete for the people. 

T19g_ What choyse should there be? 

The praiers and humbling of all, with fasting and exhortation, 
that God may be chiefe in the choise. 

The consent of the people must be gathered by the Elders or 
guides, and testifyed by voyce, presenting, or naming of some, or 
other tokens, that they approue them as meete for that calling. 


1 The meaning of this blind passage is, I take it, that where the minister gathers a church 
and it originates through his labors, he is to be received by it ‘t by obedience ”’; but where an already 
established church calls a minister, he is to be received ‘‘ by choyse.”” 


3 


26 BROWNE'S CONGREGATIONALISM 


The Elders or forwardest must ordeine, and pronounce them, 
with prayer and imposition of handes, as called and authorised of 
God, and receyued of their charg to that calling. 

Yet imposition of handes is no essentiall pointe of their call- 
ing, but it ought to be left, when it is turned into pompe or super- 
stition. 

[76] 2720 What agreement must ther be in the householdes, for 
the gouernement of them ? 

There must be an agrement of Husband and Wife, of 
Parentes & Children: Also of Maister and Seruant, and likewise 
of Teachers & Schollers, &c. 

This agreement betweene parentes and children is of naturall 
desert and duetie betweene them : 

But in the other there must be triall and iudgment of ech 
others meetnes for their likinge and callinge, as is shewed before. 

Also there must be a due couenaunt betweene them. 

[78| z2z How must Supertours execute their callinge by ruling 
their infertours ? 

They must esteeme right and due. 

They must vphould the same : 

By appointing to others their dueties. 

They must take accountes. 

122. How must they esteeme right and due ? 

They must be zealouse for equitie and innocencie. 

They must loue those and reioyse ouer them, which doe their 
dueties. 

They must hate all vanite and wickednes and be angrie and 
erecued therat, 

[So] 723 How must they appoint vuato others their worke and 
aueite ? 

They must teach them. 

They must direct them by their guiding and helpe. 

They must giue them good example. 

124 How must they teach them ? 

They must teach them the groundes of religion, and the mean- 
ing of the Scriptures. 

They must exhort and dehort particularly for reformation of 
their liues. 

They must require thinges againe which are taught, by 
particular applying and trying their guift. 

[82] 725 How must they direct them by their guiding and helpe ? 


EXTRACTS FROM BROWNE'S BOOK 27 


They must gtide thé in the worshipp of God, as in the Worde, 
Praier, Thanksgiuing, &c. 

They must gather their Voices, Doubtes and Questions, and 
determine Controuersies. 

They must particularlie commaunde and tell them their 
dueties. 

126 How must they take accountes ? 

They must continually watch them by visiting and looking to 
them them selues, and by others helping vnto them. 

They must trie out and search their state and behauiour by 
accusations and chardgings with witnesses. 

They must reforme or recompense by rebuke or separation 
the wicked and vnruly. 

[84] 727 what say you of the dueties of submisston to Supe- 
riours ? 

They consist in esteeming them. 

In honoring them. 

In seruing them. 


[The remaining Questions and Answers contain so little that is peculiar to 
Browne that I have omitted them. | 


IT 
THE LONDON CONFESSION OF 1589 


EDITIONS AND REPRINTS 

I. A Trve Description ovt | of the Word of God, | of the visible Church. 
Without title page. Dated 1589 at the end. Printed at Dort. 4° pp. 8. 

Il. The same in form and with the same date, the only variation from the 
first edition being a rearrangement of the order of the paragraphs treating of ex- 
communication. Printed at Amsterdam before 1602.! 

III. With the substitution of Congregation for Church in the title and other 
passages ; and a few minor verbal changes. Printed at [?] 1641. 4° pp. 8. 

IV. The text of the first edition was reprinted and criticised paragraph by 
paragraph by R. Alison, A Plaine Confutation of a Treatise of Brownisme, Pub- 
lished by some of that Faction, Entituled A Description, etc., London, 1590. 

V. The text of the second edition was reprinted in Lawne, Brownisme Turned 
the In-side Out-ward, etc., London, 1613. Also, VI. in Wall, Wore Work for the 
Dean, London, 1681, pp. 20-28. Also, VII. in Hanbury, Historical Memorials 
hkelating to the Independents, etc., London, 1839-44, I: 28-34. 


LITERATURE 

Beside the controversial pamphlets already cited, the Creed is treated briefly 
in Hanbury, Memorials, 1: 25-27. By far the most satisfactory and complete dis- 
cussion of this interesting document is, however, to be found in Dexter, Zhe Congre- 
gationalism of the last three hundred years, pp. 258-262. 


HE abandonment by Browne of the work which he had un- 
dertaken and the rupture of his exiled flock at Middelburg 

did not bring the Congregational movement to an end. As 
has been seen, a portion of Browne’s congregation appear to have 
maintained their organization at Norwich, though nothing is 


1T am indebted to the late Rev. Dr. H. M. Dexter for the following facts regarding these edi- 
tions: — The place of publication of the first edition and the circumstances of the issuance of the 
second are made clear by a passage in Henoch Clapham, ZLrrour on the Right Hand, etc., Lon- 
don, 1608, p. 11, in which he declared that this 7rve Description was originally printed at D[ort], 
where Barrowe’s other writings were printed; but that a second edition, bearing the original date, 
was brought out, ‘‘some yeares after his [Barrowes] death,’’ at A[msterdam] at the expense of 
Arthur Billet or Bellot. In this second edition, Clapham affirms, the paragraph beginning: ‘ All 
this notwithstanding,’’ was transferred from its original place ‘‘after the excommunication’’ (ap- 
parently after the paragraph commencing: ‘‘ Further, they are to warne”’), and inserted after the 
paragraph: “If the fault be private ;’’ the intention being, it is charged, to make excommunica- 
tion a severer matter than Barrowe intended — he believing it to be ‘‘a power to edification not to 
destruction.’’ Arthur Billet died in Febr., 1602. 

2See Hanbury, Memorials, 1: 28. 





(28) 


BARROWE AND GREENWOOD 29 


known regarding their state and fortunes.! But Congregational 
believers carried the doctrine to other cities, though their move- 
ments are now impossible to trace.?- We are first certainly aware 
of the existence of a Separatist congregation in London in 1587 
or 1588, though it may have been formed a year or two earlier.* 
But so hunted was it by the officers of the law that a large pro- 
portion of its membership were imprisoned, and though certain 
church acts, such as the admission of members and the excom- 
munication of the unworthy, were performed, the severity of the 
persecution prevented the election of appropriate church officers 
till September, 1592, when Francis Johnson was chosen pastor, 
John Greenwood teacher, and two elders and two deacons asso- 
ciated with them.’ 

Yet three years before its full organization this struggling 
London church, in the persons of its two leading members, put 
forth the creed which is the subject of present discussion. The 
principles enunciated by Browne, which have just been considered, 
though doubtless thoSe in accordance with which his congregation 
was gathered, were published by him and his friend Harrison as 
a missionary tractate rather than a church creed. The publica- 
tion, and probably the composition, of this London symbol has 
been traced conclusively® to Henry Barrowe® and John Green- 

1See ante, p. 11. 

2 The Preface to the Confession of 1596, given in the next chapter, speaks of sufferers for 


Congregationalism in London, Norwich, Gloucester, Bury St. Edmunds, and ‘* manye other places 
of the land.”’ 

3 Dexter, Cong. as seen, pp. 255, 634. If Greenwood’s arrest was in 1586, the congregation 
must certainly have been formed even earlier than 1587. 

4 Jbzd., pp. 232, 264, 265. 

5 Tétd., pp. 234, 258-262. 

®Henry Barrowe, one of the most noted and deserving of the proclaimers of modern 
Congregationalism, was of a good Norfolk family, and from 1566 to his graduation as Bachelor in 
1569-70 he was a student at Clare Hall, in the Puritanically inclined University of Cambridge, 
But whatever may have been the influences with which he was then surrounded, he left the Uni- 
versity an irreligious man. Turning his attention to the study of law, he was admitted a member 
of Gray’s Inn in 1576; and, through what means we know not, he became personally atquainted 
with Queen Elizabeth, to whose court and presence he had access. A chance sermon was the 
means of his conversion, and his conversion was followed by the adoption of the strictest Puri- 
tan principles. Acquaintance with Greenwood, it would appear, led him, some time possibly be- 
fore 1586, to embrace Congregational views. His visit to his friend Greenwood, in the place of the 
latter’s imprisonment, was the occasion of his own arrest in Nov., 1586. From that time onward 
to his execution, April 6, 1593, he was a prisoner, at first in the Clink, and then in the Fleet in 
London. His unwearied literary activity, under the most discouraging circumstances, made this 
long period of imprisonment the most productive portion of his life. Beside his elaborate exposi- 


30 THE CONFESSION OF 1589 


wood,' then prisoners for their faith, shut up in the Fleet prison 
in London, and four years later to give their lives as martyrs to 
the truths here set forth. Though the statement nowhere appears 
in the document itself, the circumstances of the publication of 
the first and second editions, as far as they can now be ascer- 
tained, certainly justify the conclusion that we have here not 
only the expression of the individual beliefs of Barrowe and 
Greenwood, but a statement which the partially formed church in 
London looked upon as expressive of the views of the whole 
brotherhood. It is, therefore, essentially a church creed. 

The Zrve Description is substantially an ideal sketch. It 
could not well be otherwise. Shut up in prison for the advocacy 
of the opinions here presented, the framers of this creed could 
look nowhere upon earth for full exemplification of the polity in 
which they believed. The church-order which they longed for 
was, they were confident, of the divinely appointed pattern. 
They read its outlines in the New Testament. But they had had 
no experience with its practical workings, and hence they pictured 
a greater degree of spiritual unity and brotherliness than even 





tion of Congregational principles in his Brief Discouerie of the false Church, 1590, and the 
Plaine Refutation of M, Giffards Booke, etc., 1591, which was to be the means of Francis John- 
son’s conversion to Congregationalism, Barrowe had a share in three controversial pamphlets. The 
pathetic story of Barrowe’s imprisonment and death, with some account of his writings, may be 
found in the work of Dr. Dexter, already cited, ppx211-245. Other sources of information are. 
Brook, Lives of the Puritans, London, 1813, I1: 23-44; Cooper, Athene Cantabrigienses, Cam- 
bridge [England], 1861, II: 151-153; Bacon, Genesis of the New England Churches, New York, 
1874, pp. 91-154, Pass? ; A. B. Grosart, in the Dictionary of National Biography, U1: 297, 
298 (London and New York, 1885). Additional references may be found appended to the articles 
of Cooper and Grosart. 

1 John Greenwood, the associate of Barrowe in his imprisonment and death, and his fellow- 
worker in the production of most of the writings mentioned in the previous note, was of less con~ 
spicuous social station than Barrowe, and somewhat younger in age. His education was obtained 
at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, where he was a sizar or pecuniarily assisted student; and 
upon graduating in 1580-1 he had entered the established ministry, and been duly ordained to the 
diaconate and priesthood. His Puritan views led him for a time to serve as chaplain in the 
family of the Puritan Lord Rich of Rockford, Essex; but his progress toward Congregationalism 
was decided, and by 1586 he was preaching, as opportunity would permit, in London. His friend- 
ship with Barrowe has already been mentioned. Cast into prison in the autumn of 1586, he was. 
released, apparently on bail, for a short time in 1592, and in September of that year was elected 
teacher by the London church, then for the first time choosing officers. His recommittal to prison 
speedily followed, and on April 6, 1593, he was hanged. Though a man of considerable ability, 
his part in the writings issued in conjunction with Barrowe was evidently secondary. Compare Dex- 
ter, Congregationalism as seen, pp. 211-245; Brook, Lives of the Puritans, I1: 23-44; Bacon, 
Genesis of the N. E. Churches, pp. 93-154, passim; Cooper, Athene Cantabrigienses, 11: 153, 
154; Dictionary of National Biography, XXII]: 84, 85. Further bibliographical references 
may be found in connection with the two articles last cited. 


NATURE OF THE CONFESSION 31 


Christian men and women have usually shown themselves capable 
of, and they made little provision for the avoidance of the fric- 
tion inevitable at times in conducting the most harmonious socie- 
ties composed of still imperfect men. But the essential features of 
early Congregationalism are here. It is first of all a “ Description 
ovt of the Word of God.” The Bible is made the ultimate 
standard in all matters of church government, as well as points of © 
doctrine. Its delineations of church polity and administration 
are looked upon as furnishing an ample and authoritative rule for 
the church in all ages. This true church is not the whole body 
of the baptized inhabitants of a kingdom, but a company of men 
who can lay claim to personal Christian experience, and who are 
united to one another and to Christ in mutual fellowship. The 
nature of the officers of this church, their number, duties, and 
character, are all held to be ascertainable from the same God- 
given Word. ‘They are not the bishops, priests, and deacons of 
the Anglican hierarchy, but are pastor and teacher, elders, deacons, 
and widows; and they hold their office not by royal appointment 
or the nomination of a patron, but “by the holy & free election 
of the Lordes holie and free people.” ‘The whole administration 
of the church is the concern of all the brethren, and the laws 
governing this administration are all derivable from the Script- 
ures. But on this very question of administration, while the 
Trve Description is not as clear as we could wish, it is plain that 
the creed is far removed from the practical democracy of Robert 
Browne or the usage of modern Congregationalism. The elders 
are indeed chosen by the whole church, but once having chosen 
them, the people are to be “most humble, meek, obedient, faith- 
full, and loving.” The elders are to see that the other officers 
do their duties aright, and the people obey. But who shall see 
that the elders do their duty, or who shall seriously limit them in 
their action? That is not made clear. It is evident that the 
Trve Description would place the elders apart from and above the 
brethren as a ruling class, having the initiative in business, being 
themselves the church in all matters of excommunication, and 


leaving to the brethren only the power of election, approval of 


32 THE CONFESSION OF 1589 


the elders’ actions, and an undefined right to reprove the elders 
if their conduct should not be in accord with the New Testament 
standard. This conception of the elders as a ruling oligarchy in 
the church is, in fact, the view elaborated by Barrowe in his 
other writings, and is the theory which Dr. Dexter happily termed 
Barrowism, in distinction from the unintentional but thorough- 
going democracy of Robert Browne.’ It is a theory which colors 
the creeds of more than a century of early Congregationalism. 
The almost complete absence. of distinctly doctrinal state- 
ment in this creed is accounted for by the fact that these London 
Separatists were in full doctrinal sympathy with the then pre- 
dominantly Calvinistic views of the English Established Church 
from which they had come out, and did not feel the necessity of 
demonstrating their doctrinal soundness, as they were shortly 
after impelled to do, when settled among strangers in a foreign 


land. 


1See Dexter, Cong. as seen, pp. 106, 107, 235-239, 351. 


THE CONFESSION OF 1589 


A TRVE DESCRIPTION OVT 


OF THE WORD OF GOD, 


of the visible Church. ? 


S there is but * one God and Father of all, one Lord over all, 
A and one Spirit: So is there but{ one truth, one Faith, one 
Salvation, one Church, called in one hope, ioyned in one 
profession, guided by one + rule, even the Word of the most high. 
Beer rey Hv0d, 20,30 tr L7mi2. 4. Phi, 127. Lphe. 2. 18. 
meer 270.25. Kom. 10.5, 217m 9.15. Toh, 8, 57. 
UR OH 259, fo OC. 

This Church as it is vniversallie vnderstood, conteyneth in it 
all the @ Elect of God that have bin, are, or shalbe: But being 
considered more particularlie, as it is seen in this present world, it 
consisteth of a companie and fellowship of* faithful and holie 
people { gathered in the name of Christ Iesus, their only + King, 
’ Priest, and #@ Prophet,* worshipping him aright, being { peace- 
ablie and quietlie governed by his Officers and lawes,t keping the 
vnitie of faith in the bond of peace & love’vnfained. # Genes. 17. 
ieee et wie cam kevele7,) 9.0.2 Cer, 10...3. oh. 17, 10, 20, 
Beene ee ee TOF /S0. 02. 12, Liphes. 1, ©. 1% Cor. 1.2. 
emeteeen emul 265) J0n-0, 97 & 9.14. & 12.32. Luke 17: 
Bone 77, 20. fSal.45 0. Zach o.o. Heb. 1,8. ' Rom. &. 34. 
emeciape f/c0 5. 0. 5, 7. Og. ig. & Deut. 15, 15. Mat. 
feet, 2) Gen, TZ. 15. * Exo 20. 4. 5.0. 7. & Lev. 10. 
Bee eee ae? 2007 Cor. 17,710. Mar. 13, 34. Kew. 
Bemmmrennc 7. 3. 1 Cor 7. 17. Mar. 9. 50.- ' Loh. 13.34. fF Cor. 
ete ef. 0.122. (1.104 3. 18. 

Most * ioyful, excellent, and glorious things are everie where 
in the Scriptures spoken of this.Church. It is called the { Citie, 
+House # Temple, & ’mountaine of the eternal God: the *chosen 
generation. the holie nation. the peculiar people, the { Vineyard, 
the + garden enclosed, the spring shut vp, the sealed fountaine, the 


1 From the 2d edition, now in the Dexter Collection of Yale University. 


Re 


34 THE CONFESSION OF 1589 


orchyard of pomgranates, with sweet fruites, the @ heritage, the 
“kingdome of Christ: [2] yea his * sister, his love, his spouse, his . 
{ Queene, & his t bodie, the ioye of the whole earth. To this 
societie is the & covenant and all the promises made of * peace, 
of love, and { of salvation, of the + presence of God, of his graces, 
of his power, and’ of) his’ @ protection. ™“Psal. +37) %3) see 
ti Lim. 3,15. feb. 3,6. te 7 Cor. 3, 17. “Lsatah 2, 2) ie 
LZ, Zach. 8,3. * 1 Petvengue| fsaiah.. 5, \T. G2 27,2 
¥2. 1sa, 51,3. t Lsa. 10,25. "' Micha. 5, 2. Mat, 352.) fen 
* Song..5. 2. | Psal. 45.9. 41 Cor. 12.27. \ Ephes. T2975 eee 
4,28. 0.09.4. *Psaim.1g7. 14. 2 hes. 3. 10. \\ [50 a0 
Lath. 14,77. + Isa) 60. ch. Hzech. 47..th. Lath if, I25 ieee 
Bea 102.2265, 20, sat sO2 chap. 

And surely if this Church be considered in her partes, it shal 
appeare most beautifull, yea most wonderfull, and even { ravishing 
the senses to conceive, much more to behold, what then to enioy 
so blessed a communion. For behold, her +t King and Lord is the 
King of peace, & Lord himself of all glorie. She enioyeth most 
holie and heavenlie * lawes, most faithfull and vigilant & Pastours, 
most syncere & pure ” Teachers, most careful and vpright { Gov- 
ernours, most diligent and trustie + Deacons, most loving and 
sober * Releevers, and a most * humble, meek, obedient, faithfull, 
and loving people, everie { stone living elect and precious, everie 
stone hath his beautie, his + burden, and his *order. All bound to 
{ edifie one another, exhort, reprove, & comfort one another f loy- 
ingly as to their owne members, * faithfully as in the eyes of God. 
{Song, 6.4. 9. +} [sai.62. 11. Toh. 12::15,) Heb. 27770008 aee 
Id, 90.) TIONS, 3. & Eph. 4. 17. Act. 20. ch. "61 12 
Cor. 12:28. “Kom. 12)8. + Actes. 6. ch. * Rom. 12, 8. te lates 

"BEC, 30. 36, Lsa, 00,5, Deut. 18. 9-13. |1 Pét 2,5. 1 hee 

9. Lit. 14,727. "4 Gal: 6, 2. “1 Cor. 12 thy Komitee 
{ Heb, 10. 245° Len920, 317, 1 Thes. 4, 0. °* Col. 3, 25 arn 
32 20. 

No { Office here is ambitiously affected, no + law wrongfully 
wrested or * wilfully neglected, no »s&trueth hid or perverted, 
”“everie one here hath fredome and power (not disturbing the 
peaceable order of the Church) to vtter his complaintes and 
griefes, & freely to reprove the transgression and errours of any 
without exception of personsa. [2 Cort 2, 77. 5 foh. 9. ee 
4,2. 3. & 5. 21. & Of 1g. 4G, 22." T°Car. 5. ee eres 
I Tim, 35.05. “Cope eee enol, of. D7, 


TEXT OF THE CONFESSION 33 


[3] Here is no “intrusion or climing vp an other way into 
the sheepefolde, then { by the holy & free election of the Lordes 
holie and free people, and that according to the Lordes ordi- 
nance, humbling themselves by fasting and prayer before the 
Lord, craving the direction of his holy Spirit, for the triall and 
Pembaving of oiites, &c. [loh.7o,7. + Actes. 1, 29. <9 O07. 14. 237. 

Thus they orderly proceed to ordination by fasting and 
prayer, in which “action the Apostles vsed laying on of handes. 
Thus hath everie one of the people interest in the election and 
ordination of their officers, as also in the administration of their 
offices, vpon { transgression, offence, abuse, &c. having an especial] 
care vnto the inviolable order of the Church, as is aforesaid. 
Demi t a Or 22), 1 Luk. 77,3. fom. 10, 17. Col. 4,17. 

Likewise in this Church they have holy + lawes, as limits & 
bondes, which, it is lawfull at no hand to transgresse. They have 
lawes to direct them in the choise of everie officer, what kind of 
men the Lord will have. Their Pastour must be apt to * teach, 
no yong Scholer, { able to divide the worde aright, + holding fast 
that faithful word, according to doctrine, that he may be able also 
to exhort, rebuke, improve, with wholesome doctrine, & to con- 
vince them that say against it: He must be *a man that loveth 
goodnes: he must be wise, righteous, holy, temperate: he must 
be of life vnreproveable, as Gods Steward : hee must be generally 
well reported of, & one that ruleth his owne houshold vnder obed- 
lence with al honestie: he must be modest, humble, meek, gentle, 
& loving: hee must be a man of great { patience, compassion, 
labour and diligence: hee must alwaies be carefull and watchfull 
over the flock whereof the Lord hath made him overseer, with al 
willingnes & chearefulnes, not holding his office in respect of 
persons, but doing his duetie to everie soule, as he will aunswer 
Peiemeeine chicl shepheard, ve. + Mat. 5. 19. r Tim.1. 18: 
tee, 7g), 257.011 Jam, 3, 1. &c. [2 Tim. 2) 75, 
eee (77 72. tT 7,5. [iVum. 12, 3.7. Lsay. Go, 
Meee 75.) Fize9d, Ic. Act. 20ch. I Pet. 5, 1, 29304. 
ee e705 27. 

AT Their Doctor or Teacher must be a man apt to teach, able to 
diuide the word of God aright, and to diliver sound and whole- 
som doctrine from the same, still building vpon that sound 
groundwork, he must be mightie in the Scriptures, able to con- 
vince the gainsayers, & carefull to deliver his doctrine pure, 
sound & plaine, not with curiositie or affectation, but so that it 


36 THE CONFESSION OF 1589 


may edifie the most simple, approving it to every mans con- 
science: he must be of life vnreproveable, one that can [4] governe 
his owne houshold, he must be of manners sober, temperate, 
modest, gentle and lovingjavey 7 779, 9. chap, 17s ieee 
iti, 15, I COV fey eene es 

Their Elders must be of wisedome and iudgement endued 
with the Spirit of God, able to discerne between cause & cause, 
between plea & plea, & accordingly to prevent & redres evilles, 
alwayes vigilant & intending to see the statutes, ordinances, and 
lawes of God kept in the Church, and that not onelie by the peo- 
ple in obedience, but to see the Officers do their dueties. These 
men must bee of life likewise vnreproveable, governing their owne 
families orderly, they must be also of maners sober, gentle, 
modest, loving, temperate, &c. Numb. 11. 24, 25. 2 Chro. 79. &. 
PACES TGs CH LL LL ag AO? Ge: 

Their Deacons must be men of honest report, having the 
mysterie of the faith in a pure conscience, endued with the holy 
Ghost: they must be grave, temperate, not given to excesse, nor 
to hithiednere:, Ales 0, pee pe en 

Their Relievers or Widowes must be women of 60. yeares of 
age at the least, for avoyding of inconveniences: they must be 
well reported of for good works, such as have nourished their 
children, such as have bin harberous to straungers: diligér & ser- 
viceable to the Saints, cOpassionate & helpful to them in adversi- 
tie, given to everie good worke, continuing in supplications and 
prayers night and day. sz Zim. 5. 9. Io. 

These Officers muste first be duely proved, then if they be 
found blameles, administer, &c. z Tim. 3 Jo. 

Nowe as the persons, giftes, conditions, manners, life, and 
proofe of these officers, is set downe by the holie Ghost: So are 
their offices limited, severed, and divers: 7 Cor. 72; 12, 78.20, 

The Pastours office is, to feed the sheep of Christ invgrecm 
and wholesome pastures of his word, and lead them to the still 
waters, even to the pure fountaine and river of life. Hee must 
guyde and keep those sheep by that heauenly sheephook & pas- 
torall staffe of the word, thereby drawing them to him, thereby 
looking into their soules, even into their most secret thoughtes : 
Thereby discerning their diseases, and thereby curing them: ap- 
plying to every disease a fit and cOuenient medicine, & according 
to the qualitie & danger of the disease, give warning to the 
Church, that they may orderly proceed to excommunication. 


TEXT OF THE CONFESSION Ri, 


Further, he must, by this his sheepehook watch over and defend 
his flock from rauenous beastes and the Wolfe, and take the litle 
eG sito e. LeU, TO,.J0,7T. ING: 18) TA eek A423. & 
Mee eo, 27, 25. Ace 20, 25.) 1 Pet, Fae LEH, Tl. 7. 
ewe ie 2, 42. 2 COr 1g, g 5. Leh, geneween. iO, TT, 
eee NOUS 26-15. 

[5] Phe Doctours office is alreadie sett downe in his descrip- 
tion: His speciall care must bee. to build vpon the onely true 
groundwork, golde, silver, and pretious stones, that his work may 
endure the triall of the fire. and by the light of the same fire, re- 
veale the Tymber, Hay, and Stubble of false Teachers: hee must 
take diligent heed to keep the Church from errours. And further 
hee must deliver his doctrine so plavnlie simplie, and purelie, that 
the church may increase with the increasing of God, & growe vp 
Varouwim which ts the head, Christ) lesus. z Cor, 3977. 72. Levit. 
meme ccc eae el. 2 1Cc and fg. 24, Mal, 2,0. © Cor. 3, IZ. 
ere aera iid. 10, 0..20, —Lphe 2, 20.) fleb.6,1. I 
ble? <2, | 

The office of the Auncientes is expressed in their descrip- 
tion: Their especiall care must bee, to see the ordinaunces of 
God truely taught and and practized, aswel by the officers in dooing 
their duetie vprightlie, as to see that the people obey willinglie 
and readily. It is their duetie to see the Congregation holily and 
quietly ordered, and no way disturbed, by the contentious and dis- 
obedient froward and obstinate: not taking away the libertie of 
the least, but vpholding the right of all, wiselie iudging of times 
and circumstances. They must bee readie assistauntes to the 
Pastour and Teachers, helping to beare their burden, but not in- 
mieioeinto, their, ofice. iNum. 11.16, Deut. 1. 13 & 1613.. 2 
nn ei GO. 72.) T0115. 2. 7im. I, 13. 1 Cor. Id, 
eee ee rds 2, 45, Tf. Col 4; 10,17. Act. 20,. 1 Pet. S, 
eee 0771. 72,0. 

The Deacons office is, faithfully to gather & collect by the 
ordinance of the Church, the goods and benevolence of the faith- 
full, and by the same direction, diligentlie and trustilie to dis- 
tribute them according to the necessitie of the Saincts. Further 
they must enquire & consider of the proportion of the wantes 
both of the Officers and other poore, and accordinglie relate vnto 
the Church, that provision may be made. Actes 6. Rom ra, 8. 

The Relievers & Widowes office is, to minister to the sicke, 
lame, wearie, & diseased, such helpefull comforts as they need, 


38 THE CONFESSION OF 1589 


by watching, tending and helping them: Further, they must shew 
good example to the yonger Women, in sober, modest, & godly 
conversation, avoyding idlenes, vaine talke, & light behaviour. 
Kotmere 3: I Times are 

These Officers, though they be divers and severall, yet are 
they not severed, least there should be a division in the body, but 
they are as members of the bodie, having the same case [care] one 
of another, ioyntlie doing their severall dueties to the service of the 
Sainctes, and to the edification of the Bodie of Christ, till wee all 
meet together in the perfect measure of the fulnes of Christ, by 
whom all the bodie being in the meane whyle thus coupled and 
knit togither by everie ioynt for the [6] furniture thereof, accord- 
ing to the effectuall power which is in the measure of everie part, 
receiveth increase of the bodie, vnto the edifying of it self in love: 
neither can any of these Offices be wanting, without grievous 
lamenes, & apparant deformitie of the bodie, yea violent injurie 
to the Head Christ lesus. Luk’ 9: 46. 47. 48. Joh) 13572) pee 
COP L212 A250 LLP Hes 7, ee er Te 

Thus this holie armie of saintes, is marshalled here in earth 
by these Officers, vnder the conduct of their glorious Emperour 
CHRIST, that victorious Michaell. Thus it marcheth in this 
most heavenlie order, & gratious araye, against all Enimies both 
bodilie and ghostlie: peaceable in it self as Ierusalem, terrible to 
the enemy as an Armie with baners, triumphing over their tyran- 
nie with patience, their crueltie with mekenes, and over Death it 
self with dying. Thus through the blood of that spotles Lambe, 
and that Word of their testimonie, they are more then Con- 
querours, brusing the head of the Serpent: yea through the 
power of his Word, they have power to cast down Sathan like 
lightning: to tread vpon Serpents aud Scorpions: to cast downe 
strong holds, and everie thing that exalteth it self against GoD. 
The gates of Hell and all the Principalities and powers of the 
world, shall not prevayle against it. Rom. 12. ch.” 7 ones 
Rev. 14.1.2. | S0n@40.03, Chteo 72. 77, “Luk; 10.313, 10 een 
10,5. “Mat, 10, 7S eo ae: 

Further, he hath given them the keyes of the Kingdome of 
Heaven, that whatsoever they bynd in earth by his word, shalbe 
bound in heaven: and whatsoever they loose on earth, shalbe 
loosed in heaven. Jat. 26, 79. ohn. 20, 23. Mat. 18, 18. 

Now this power which Christ hath given vnto his Church, and 
to every member of his Church, to keep it in order, hee hath not 


TEXT OF THE CONFESSION 39 


left it to their discretions and lustes to be vsed or neglected as 
they will, but in his last Will and Testament, he hath sett downe 
both an order of proceeding, and an end to which it is vsed. Mat. 
eomtoutg w 18. 16070, 77,75. & 28. 20: Deutavegor. 32. Rev. 
wetos TO, 

If the fault be private, holy and loving admonition & reproof 
is to be vsed, with an inward desire & earnest care to winne their 
brother: But if hee wil not heare, yet to take two or three other 
brethren with him, whom he knoweth most meet for that purpose, 
that by the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be 
confirmed ; And if he refuse to heare them, then to declare the 
matter to the Church, which ought severelie and sharpelie to repre- 
hend, gravelie to admonish, and lovinglie to perswade the partie 
offending: shewing him the heynousnes of his offence, & the 
daunger of his obstinacie, & the fearefull judgements of the Lord. 
Peverot7.. 19). Matiirs15. Deut. 29; 75. Mat, 78, 76. 

[7] All this notwithstanding the Church is not to hold him as 
an enimie, but to admonish him and praye for him as a Brother, 
prooving if at any time the Lord will give him repentaunce. For 
this power is not given them to the destruction of any, but to the 
Poimeation of ally 2) 7 hes, 9,75. 2 Cor. 10,'\8. and 13, ro. 

If this prevaile not to draw him to repentance, then are they 
in the Name aud power of the Lord IESVS with the whole Con- 
gregation, reverently in prayer to proceed to excommunication, 
that is vnto the casting him out of their congregation & fellow- 
ship, covenaunt & protecti6d of the Lord, for his disobedience & ob- 
stinacie, & committing him to Sathan for the destructid of the 
flesh, that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord lesus, if 
such bee his good wil and pleasure. Mat. 18.77. z Cor 5 12. 

Further, they are to warne the whole Congregation and all 
other faithfull, to hold him as a Heathen and Publicane, & to ab- 
steine themselves from his societie, as not to eat or drink with 
him, &c. vnles it bee such as of necessitie must needes, as his 
Wife, his Children, and Familie: yet these (if they be members of 
the Church) are not to joyne tov-him in any spirituall exercise. 
Mesewioriy, i Cor. 5. 11. 

If the offence bee publike, the partie is publiquely to bee re- 
proved, and admonished: if hee then repent not, to proceed to 


1 The difference between the first and second editions of this creed lies in the position of this 
paragraph. In the first edition it was placed ‘‘after the excommunication,” 7. e., apparently after 
the paragraph beginning, ‘‘ Further, they are to warne.’”’ (See note to page 28 as to the alleged 
reasons for this change.) 





40 THE CONFESSION OF 1589 


excommunication, as aforesaid, 91) Lim. 5. 20: Gal! 2.1459 TGs 
1pm C Or, 7. 9. ; 

The repentance of the partie must bee proportionable to the 
offence, viz. If the offence bee publique, publique: If private, pri- 
vate: humbled, submissive, sorrowfull, vnfained, giving glorie to 
the Lord. ev. 79; 77. 8 Pr0, 10,72; Rom T2719) ae 
and I4. I. 

There must great care bee had of admonitions, that they bee 
not captious or curious finding fault when none is; neyther yet in 
bitternes or reproch: for that were to destroye and not to save 
our brother: but they must bee carefullie done, with prayer going 
before, they must dee seazoned with trueth, grauitie, love & peace. 
Mate 18. 15. & 26. 8. Gal..6, 1. 2. \2 Timi 2) 225 (a7 eee 
PODHESS A eon We Ch. 5 L501, 20 

Moreover in this Church is an especiall care had by every 
member thereof, of offences: The Strong ought not to offend the 
Weak, nor the weake to iudge the stronge: but all graces here 
are given to the service and edification of each other in love and 
long suffering. | Lvke.. 77, 2. P70. 10, 124 . ROMs TA 19, oe 
Oe. 

In this Church is the Truth purelie taught, and surelie kept: 
heer is the Covenaunt, the Sacramentes, and promisses, the 
graces, the glorie, the presence, the worship of God, &c. Gen. 
17. ch, Lev, 26,11. 12: tsar gg. 9. Galy gras & 0,70. 
BS i. (Deut. 4, 72.13. Lsay, 50, 75 TRL Ber Gen Sa 

[$8] Into this Temple entreth no vncleane thing, neither what- 
soever worketh abhominatios or lyes, but they which are writé in 
the Lambes' Book of life. J/say. 52. 7. Hzek. 47 0. Ssaeaeeee 
LCN ALA ME TM INCU: 20 27, 

But without this CHVRCH shalbe dogs and Enchaunters, & 
- Whoremongers, & Murderers, and Idolatours, and whosover loveth 
Sc maketh ly esr ehiegw h2.:0) er. 22.875. 


15.5.0. 


RET 


Pee oECOND CONRESSION .OF THE LONDON- 
Poon Avi CHURCH 1506 


EDITIONS AND REPRINTS it 

I. A Trve Confession, etc.1 1596. No place of publication given, but almost 
certainly printed at Amsterdam. 

II. Confessio Fidet Anglorum Qvorundam in Belgia Exvlantivm . Vna cum 
Prefatione ad Lectorem.: Quam ab omnibus legit et animadverti cupimus, etc., 
1598. Probably printed at Amsterdam. A Latin translation of I. with a new pre- 
face and some slight modification of a few articles. 

Ill. Zhe Confession of fatth of certayne English people living in exile in the 
Low Countreys, etc., 1598. Apparently an English edition of II. 

IV. A Dutch translation, before 1600.? 

V. Printed also in English in Certayne Letters,® translated into English, etc.; 
1602. 

VI. In English also in Johnson and Ainsworth’s, Afologie or Defence of such 
Trve Christians as are commonly (but vniustly) called Brovunists: etc., 1604. pp. 
4-29. (Reprint of III.). 

VII. In Latin, Confessio Fidet Anglorum quorundam in Inferiort Germania 
exulantium, etc., 1607. 16° pp. ii, 56. 

VIII. In English, same title as No. III., with the addition of the Points of 
Difference from the Church of England, given in the next chapter, 1607. 

IX. In Dutch, in a translation of No. VI., 1614. 

X. In Dutch, in a new translation of No. VI., Amsterdam, 1670. 
LITERATURE 

Hanbury, Historical Memorials, I: g1-98, with extracts from the preface and 
articles; Punchard, Wistory of Congregationalism, 2d ed., Boston [1867], III: 223- 
226; Dexter, Cong. as seen, pp. 270, 271, 278-282, 299-301, 316; Fletcher, //zs- 
wry. . . of Independency, 2d ed., London, 1862, II: 215-222. 


HE organization of the London Church, perfected in Septem- 
ber, 1592, by the choice of Francis Johnson’ as pastor and 
John Greenwood as teacher, was followed by Greenwood’s speedy 


1 Full title in connection with the reprint at the close of this chapter. 

2 Mentioned by Francis Johnson in Ax Answer to Master H. Lacob, etc., p. 134. I owe 
this information to the late Dr. Dexter. 

3 The letters here referred to were between Francis Junius, professor of Theology at Leyden, 
and the exiled church. See Dexter, Cong: as seen, p. 301. 

4 Francis Johnson was born in 1562, of a Yorkshire family of some prominence. While 
a student at Cambridge, and still more as a fellow of Christ’s College at that University, he 
became imbued with Presbyterian principles. His public proclamation of his views in 1589 was fol- 


4 (41) 


42 THE CONFESSION OF 1596 


a 


arrest and execution. Johnson shared also in his colleague’s com- 
mittal and detention,’ though his life was spared; and in the spring 
of 1593 no less than fifty-six of the little flock followed their pastor 
and teacher into confinement in the London prisons.* These mul- 
tiplied arrests, embracing many of humble position and little polit- 
ical importance, led the government to look upon emigration as 
the best method of ridding London of the Separatists; and there- 
fore, though Johnson and other of the leaders were kept in prison, 
the way was made easy, from the summer of 1593 onward, for them 
to slip over to Holland.* After being scattered for a time, it would 
appear, in villages in the neighborhood of Amsterdam, the bulk of 
the congregation found their home in that city itself. This re- 
gathering of the scattered church in Amsterdam, which took place 
as early as 1595,* was accompanied or followed by the election® of 


lowed by his imprisonment. After considerable influence had been brought to bear on the authori- 
ties by his friends, hé was allowed to leave England, and became pastor of the Puritanically inclined 
church of English merchants at Middelburg in the Dutch province of Zeland. It was while here, 
in 1591, that Barrowe and Greenwood’s Plaine Refvtation of M. Giffards Booke, etc., came to 
his knowledge, as it was passing through the press at Dort. Having notified the English ambassa- 
dor, Johnson was commissioned to destroy the forth-coming edition. This he did, saving two of 
the volumes for himself and a friend. But in reading the work he was convinced of the truth of 
the principles it set forth. He therefore gave up his pleasant position at Middelburg, and going to 
London sought out Barrowe and Greenwood in prison. From that time onward he was associated 
with the fortunes of the London church. Elected its pastor in 1592, he was imprisoned in London 
from 1593 to 1597, and was then released on condition of going to a newly projected colony in the 
Gulf of St. Lawrence. The loss of one of the vessels on the Nova Scotian coast compelled the re- 
turn of the expedition to England. Once back in London Johnson contrived to escape to Holland 
in the autumn of 1597. The London church was thus completely transferred to Amsterdam. John- 
son’s pastorate here was stormy. In 1610 the church was divided between him and Ainsworth, in a 
quarrel in which Ainsworth seems to have been in the right. But whatever his faults may have 
been, he was a man of sincerity, earnestness, and ability. He died in January, 1618, at Amsterdam. 
His controversial works were numerous and vigorous. Dexter, Cong. as seen, Bibliog. enumerates 
nine titles. Compare for Johnson’s biography Brook, Lives of the Puritans, I1: 89-106. Han- 
bury, Memorials, 1, Ch. V, and following: Dexter, as cited, pp. 263, 264, 272-278, 283-310; Gordon 
in Dictionary of National Biography, XXX: 9-11. The account of his conversion is given by 
Gov. William Bradford of Plymouth, in a Dzalogwe, written in 1648, and is distinctly stated to be 
based on Johnson’s own statement, Young, Chronicles of the Pilgrints, pp. 424, 425. Boston, 1844. 
A few facts may be found in Neal, H7zstory of the Puritans, Toulmin’s ed. Bath, 1793, 1: 468; 
II: 43-49. 

1 Both were arrested Dec. 5, 1592. Dexter, Cong. as seen, p. 266. 2 Jbtd. 

3 Jézd, pp. 266-268. Their departure was expedited by a law passed by Parliament in 1593, 
entitled ‘‘ An Act to retain the Queen’s Majesty’s subjects in due obedience,”’ providing that any 
above 16 years of age who should refuse to go to church for a month, or attend any religious con- 
venticle, should be imprisoned without bail until he publicly submit and conform. If he refuse 
this, on conviction he is to ‘‘abjure this realm of England, and all other the Queen’s dominions for 
ever.’’ If he return he is guilty of ‘‘ felony, without benefit of clergy.”’ 7. e., worthy of death. 35 
Eliz., 1, 2, 3,5. T.W. Davids, Axzals of Evangelical Nonconformity in the County of Essex, 
London, 1863, pp. 86, 87. See also Neal, History of the Puritans, 1: 465-467. Perry, History of 
the English Church (Student's Series, 1881), p. 336. 

4 Ibzd., p. 268. : 5 The date is entirely uncertain. 


JOHNSON AND AINSWORTH 43 


Henry Ainsworth’ to the vacant post of teacher, the pastor, Francis 
Johnson, still remaining in his London prison. Conscious once 
more of a distinct, though divided, corporate existence, and domi- 
ciled in a foreign city, the church desired to define its doctrinal 
position, lest it should fall under the charge of heresy; and to 
make clear its views on polity, lest its separation from the English 
Establishment should seem unjustifiable schism or rebellion against 
civil authority. With this two-fold object in view, therefore, the 


London-Amsterdam church put forth a new creed sometime in 


1596. 

Though some consultation was probably held between the exiles 
at Amsterdam and those of the flock who were still in confinement 
in London,’ the Preface of the Confession clearly indicates it was 
chiefly the work of the former. Who of the church were instru- 
mental in its preparation cannot be surely affirmed, but the conjec- 
ture is natural that a large share of the labor fell to Ainsworth. 


Probably the Preface was not entirely from his hand. Its tone is 


1 Henry Ainsworth, the most learned of the founders of modern Congregationalism and one 
of its saintliest ministers, was born, according to his own testimony, in 1570 or ’71; but all the de- 
tails of his early life are tantalizingly obscure. It is probable that he never enjoyed a university 
education, but, however acquired, his learning was from our first acquaintance with him far beyond 
that which was usual even among professedly learned men. He wrote a Latin style of considerable 
felicity, while his knowledge of Hebrew, quickened and increased by opportunities for intercourse 
with Jews which Amsterdam afforded, was such that Bradford was able to record the opinion of 
competent scholars at the university of Leyden that ‘the had not his better for the Hebrew tongue 
in the university, nor scarce in Europe.’’ Even better testimony to the extent and modernness of 
his knowledge of Hebrew is the fact that his A zzo0fatZons on the Pentatéeuch and Psalms are held 
in esteem to this day as a still valuable aid to the study of the Scriptures. The same obscurity 
which veils Ainsworth’s early life and education hides from us all certain knowledge as to the cir- 
cumstances which led to his adoption of Congregational views or his first association with the 
Separatists. His abilities, when once known, would readily account for his election to the teacher- 
ship of the exiled church. A man of peace, Ainsworth’s service in the Amsterdam Church was 
vexed by the strifes which rent that distracted body, and which finally, in 1610, led to a separation 
between him and Johnson. He remained in his ministry at Amsterdam till his death in 1622 or 
1623, an event which Neal and Brook attributed to poison, and Dexter in his Cog. as seen, suggests 
may have been due to pulmonary complaints. The true cause was, however, later discovered by 
Dr. Dexter, and the full proofs will doubtless soon be published. I may perhaps be permitted to 
‘say that the disease was the stone, and that poison had no share in Ainsworth’s death. Ainsworth’s 
works were very numerous. Some 23 are enumerated by Dr. Dexter in Cong. as seen, p. 346, and 
further particulars may be found in the Dictionary of National Biography, 1: 192, 193. 

For Ainsworth’s biography see Bradford, Dialogue, in Young’s Chronicles of the Pilgrims, 
pp. 448, 449. Neal, History of the Puritans, Toulmin’s ed., IL: 43-45. Stuart in preface to re- 
print of Two Treatises, 7. e., Ainsworth’s Communion of Saincts and Arrow against Idolatry, 
Edinboro, 1789. Brook, Lives of the Puritans, 11: 299-303. Hanbury, Memortads, 1: Chs. V- 
XXIV passim. Dexter, Cong. as seen, pp. 269, 270, 299-346. W. E. A. Axon in Dict, National 
Biography, 1: 191-194. 

2 Dexter, Cong. as seen, p. 270. 3 See Preface, opening paragraph. 


A4 THE CONFESSION OF 1596 


one of sense of personal wrong, somewhat in contrast to the intro- 
duction to the Latin translation which is almost certainly the work 
of his pen. But whether many or few of the London-Amsterdam 
church shared in its preparation, the Coz/fesston was put forth as the 
symbol of the whole body, and its value in witnessing to their doc- 
trine, polity, and attitude toward the English Establishment from 
which they had come out is correspondingly great. 

The Preface breathes a spirit of hostility to the supporters of 
the National Church natural in men who had suffered so much at 
the hands of the prelates. But it is a hostility based clearly on 
principle. Whatever added touch of bitterness the arraignment 
may have derived from the recollection of prisons and death, the 
real motive of its composition was not enmity to persons, but a pro- 
found conviction that the English Church, when tried by the Scrip- 
ture standards, was un-Christian. As such it was, in these men’s 
thinking, a positive peril to the soul to be of its membership. And 
if the premises of their argument are correct, if their principle, 
which was but a logical application of the fundamental thought of 
the Reformation, is right in asserting that nothing should be prac- 
ticed in the government of the church or the worship of God which 
is not fully patterned in the Bible, the cogency of the arguments of 
the Preface is undeniable. With far more readableness of style 
than is usual in controversial writings of the period, the writers of 
this introduction put questions to their opponents regarding the 
divine warrant of the liturgy, rites, ministry, and membership of 
the Church of England which must have been exceedingly difficult 
for the Puritan wing of the Establishment to answer. And at the 
same time they gave biographical facts regarding the martyrs of 
their own body which are not elsewhere to be found. No other 
single document of so brief compass so well sets forth the suffer- 
ings and the motives of these much-tried Separatists. 

The creed itself consists of forty-five articles, treating some of 
doctrine, others of polity. In matters of belief they are in substan- 
tial harmony with the positions of the Calvinistic churches of the 
Continent, and with the Puritan wing of the Church of England. 


NATURE OF THE CONFESSION 45 


On these heads their creed is but little more than a re-affirmation 
of the current beliefs of a vast majority of the Protestant churches 
at that day. In polity it lays down the propositions already pre- 
sented in the Zrve Description, but with much greater fullness of 
elaboration. It is no longer anideal sketch. Questions of actual 
administration have evidently led to minuter definition in regard to 
certain problems. An instance or two may illustrate. In the 77ze 
Description no provision was made for the reception of the members 
of one church into another, or for the relations of church to 
church. Now it is hard to see, perhaps, how these questions could 
have become very pressing to the London-Amsterdam church. 
But the divided condition of that body, if nothing else, had caused 
them to be thought of ; and therefore the creed of 1596 enunciates 
the truly Congregational, because truly Scriptural, doctrine that 
members coming from one church to another should bring certifi- 
cates of their character and standing.’ It declares further that 
while the individual independence of each church is to be recog- 
nized, churches owe counsel and help to one another in matters of 
more than usual concern.? The Z7rve Description, in similar man- 
ner, made no provision for the removal of such church officers as 
might prove unworthy of their trust, save what might be implied in 
the very general remarks as to the right of a church to excommuni- 
cate any offending member. The creed before us, on the contrary, 
declares that a church may depose a minister unfit for his post, and 
counsels procedure to excommunication only when continued evil 
conduct demands a further step. These examples, which the stu- 
dent can readily multiply for himself, show plainly that the creed of 
1596 is not merely greater in verbal extent than that of 1589, but 
marks a growth in appreciation and application of Congregational 
principles. 

The document is more than a general statement of faith and 
polity. It is evidently the answer of its writers also to the ques- 
tion which must frequently have been put to them as to the 
method of procedure by which they would reform the Church of 
England if they could have their way. The thirty-second to the 


1 Article 37. 2 Article 38. 3 Article 23. 


40 THE CONFESSION OF 1596 


thirty-ninth articles are a program for action. They would have 
all who are convinced of the truth of the charges here formulated 
against the Establishment lay down any offices which they may 
have held within it and at once renounce its communion. No one, 
holding the rightful view of what Christ intended a church to be, 
is to contribute longer to the financial support of the legal church, 
even though such a refusal make him obnoxious to the law. These 
religious men, who have come forth from the Church of England, 
are next to join in local congregations, united by a covenant and a 
common confession of faith.2 In these congregations any who are 
able, and have the approval of their associates, are to teach and 
preach ; but the sacraments are not to be administered until some 
of these preachers, whose qualifications have appeared eminent, 
are chosen and ordained to the divinely appointed offices of pastor, 
teacher, elder, and deacon, or as many of these offices as the 
church finds men fitted to fill. Then baptism is to be administered 
to the children and wards of the members of the local church, and 
its members of mature years are to unite in the Lord’s supper.® 
But baptism does not admit its recipient to the full privileges of 
the church. While all who will are to be urged to be present at 
the preaching of God’s word, and while the duty of professing 
faith in Christ is to be pressed upon them, the church is to be in- 
creased only by the admission of those who make a profession of 
personal belief and who publicly unite in the covenant fellowship.‘ 
Thus the Christian people of any given town in England, so the 
makers of this creed thought, might be released from the Estab- 
lishment and organized into true churches. But what should be 
done with the Establishment and with those who refused to come 
out cf it? The answer is characteristic of the times, and illustra- 
tive of the partial vision to which these men had attained. The 
old system was to be uprooted and the buildings and revenues 
which it enjoyed were to be confiscated by civil authority. The 
magistrate was to enforce upon the reluctant the commands of 
God.’ There is something ludicrous as well as pathetic in the 
1 Article 32. 2 Article 33. 8 Article 34, 35. 


2 Article? 37: 5 Article 39. 


° 


HOW THEY WOULD REFORM THE CHURCH 47 


readiness with which these exiles,of Amsterdam and prisoners of 
London call upon the power from which they had themselves suf- 
fered so much to enforce on others that which they had had to 
bear. But in this matter the nineteenth century is apt to judge 
the sixteenth hardly. Such a thought as that of honest difference 
of opinion in regard to the main, and even the minor truths of 
Christianity was foreign to the great mass of men for more than 
two centuries after the Reformation. Dissent from their own con- 
victions men believed to be due to defect in moral character, such 
failure to see the truth could be owing only to willfulness, or to a 
divine withholding of light which was in itself high evidence of the 
sinfulness of those thus deprived. ‘There could be but one right 
view. ‘These Separatists held it. They had called on their oppo- 
nents to show its falsity, and to their thinking their opponents 
had failed. And since it is the duty of a magistrate, they thought, 
to support the truth, the magistrates of England should overthrow 
an Establishment, which civil government had so often altered 
during the last fifty years, and which the Separatists believed they 
had demonstrated to be utterly unworthy. We may well regret 
that these early Congregationalists and the founders of New Eng- 
land also did not share the truer view of Browne,' and of the Ana- 
baptists regarding the limits of civil authority, but there is little 
reason for surprise that they did not. 

This.is, after all, a minor matter. England was not to be re- 
formed on the lines here laid down. But asa statement of Con- 
gregationalism this creed marks a decided gain in clearness. As 
a setting forth of the essential and permanent features of the 
system in definite form, it was fitted to stand for many years, as 
the frequent reprints show it did stand, as an adequate and valued 
exposition of Congregational doctrine and polity. 

As has already been seen, the creed, as it was issued in 1596, 
was preceded by an introduction breathing the spirit of strong in- 
dignation against the oppressors from whose hands the church 
had so recently escaped, and who still held some of the brethren 
in bondage. The very warmth of this feeling, justifiable as it was, 





1 See ante, p. 12. 


48 THE CONFESSION OF 1596 


rendered this preface less likely to be favorably received by those 
unfamiliar with English ecclesiastical affairs. And as the church 
at last gathered together all its scattered membership at Amster- 
dam (1597), and came to be more and more a recognized, though 
humble, element in the religious life of the city, the desire to 
set themselves right in the eyes of Protestant Christendom, which 
had prompted the original draft of the creed, impelled the breth- 
ren to make a translation of their profession into the only tongue 
which learned Europe could understand, and preface it with an 
account of the government and rites of the legally established 
church of their native country designed to make clear to the non- 
English reader the reasons for their separation. The new preface 
is milder in tone than the old, though it retains passages from the 
latter. But it cannot be said to have gained in strength or 
cogency. The translation of the old creed, thus introduced, ap- 
peared late in 1598;' and was, doubtless, the work of the 
scholarly Henry Ainsworth. Its typographical dress indicated the 
improved outward estate of the exiled company, as surely as the 
mute witness of the wretched printing and the scanty font of type 
revealed the dire poverty of these exiles for what they believed to 
be the truth of God at their first coming into Holland. 





1 Dexter, Cong. as seen, p. 299. The following articles were slightly revised, not for content, 
but for clearness of statement, in the edition of 1598; xvii, xxviii, xxx, xliii, and xliv. 


THE CONFESSION OF 1596 


Seetiy i CONPESSI- ON . OF THI PAITH, AND 
HVM- | BLE ACKNOVVLEDGMENT OE THE ALE- | geance, 
vvhich vvee hir Maiesties Subjects, falsely called Brovvnists, | 
doo hould tovvards God, and yeild to hir Majestie and all other 
that | are ouer vs in the Lord. Set dovvn in Articles or Positions, 
for the | better & more easie vnderstanding of those that shall 
read yt: And | published for the cleering of our selues from those 
vnchristian slan- | ders of heresie, schisme, pryde, obstinacie, dis- 
loyaltie, | sedicion, &c. vvhich by our adversaries are | in all 
places given out against vs.| wee beleeue therfore haue we spoken. 
2 Cor. 4, 13.| But, | who hath beleeued our report, and vnto whom 
mere parmnme of the Lora reuealed? Isat. 53, 1.| M.D. XCVI. 


[ii Blank. | 
[iii]. To all that desire to feare, to loue, & to obey our Lord Iesus Christ, 
grace, wisdom and vnderstanding. 


hou’ canst not lightly bee ignorant (gentle Reader) what eviils and afflictions, for 
our profession and faith towards God wee haue susteined at the hands of our 
owne Nation: How bytterly wee haue been, an yet are, accused, reproched and per- 
secuted wich [with] such mortall hatred, as yf wee were the most notorious obstinate 
hereticks, and disloyall subiects to our gracious Queen Elizabeth, that are this day to 
bee found in all the Land. And therfore, besides the dayly ignominie wee susteine 
at the hands of the Preachers and Prophets of our tyme, who have given theyr 
tongnes the reins to speacke despightfully of vs, wee haue been further miserably en- 
treated by the Prelats and cheef of the Clergie: some of vs cast into most vile and 
noysome prisons and dungeons,*° * laden with yrons, and there, withont all pitie, de- 
teyned manie yeeres, no man remembring our affliction: vntill our God released 
some of vs out of theyr cruell bands by death, as the Cities of Londo, Norwich, 
Glocester, Bury,? and manye other places of the land can testifie. Yet heere the 
malice of Satan stayed not it self, but raysed vp against vs a more greevous persecu- 
tion, even vnto the violent death of some,t® and lamentable exile of vs all; causing 
heavie decrees to come forth against vs, that wee should forsweare our own Contrey 





*o They shut op our lyves in the Dnngeon, they cast a stone upon vs. Lam. 
y =] ’ 7 


3. 53. 
+? Anno 1593. April. 10.4 


1 From this point onward the preface is in Old English black letter. I have tried to give it 
“iteratim, even to the misprints. 

2 This and the subsequent notes are on the margin of the pages, often with no mark indicat- 
ing their exact reference to the text. When not so indicated I have added a o, 

3 Bury St. Edmunds. 

4 The martyrdom of Barrowe and Greenwood is probably meant, though that was Apl. 6. 


(49) 


50 THE CONFESSION OF 1596 


& depart, or els bee slayne therein. This have onr adversaries vsed, as their last 
and best argument against vs, (when all other fayled) followinge the stepps of theyr 
bloody Prodecessors, the popish Priests and Prelats. Now therfore that the true 
cause of this their hostilitie & hard vsage of vs may appeere vnto all men; wee haue 
at lengh amyds our manie troubles, through Gods favonr, obteyned to publish vnto 
the view of the world, a confession of our fayth & hope in Christ, and loyal harts, 
towards our Prince, the rather to stop the mouths of impious and vnreasonable men, 
who have not ceased some of them, both openly in their Sermons & printed pamph- 
lets, notoriously to accuse and defame vs, as alsoo by all indirect meanes secretly to 
suggest the malice of their owne evill harts, therby invegling our soveraign Prince 
and Rulers against vs: that when the true state of the controversie between them 
and vs shalbe manifested, the christian (or but indiffirent) Reader may iuge whether 
our adversaries have not followed the way of Cain anda Balaam, to kill and curse vs 
Gods sernants without cause. For if in this onr Confession appeere no matter 
worthie such mortal inmitie and persecution, then we protest (good Reader) that, to 
our knowledge, they neyther haue cause nor colour of cause so to entreat vs, the 
mayne and entire difference betwixt their Synagogs and vs, beeing in these Articles 
fully & wholly comprised. 

An other motive inducing vs to the publication of this our testimonie, is, the 
rufull estate of our poore Contrymen, who remayne yet fast locked in Egipt, that 
hous of servants, in slavish subjection to strange LLs! & lawes, enforced to beare 
the burdens and iutollerable yoke of their popish canons & decrees, beeing subiect 
every day they rise to * 38 antichristian ecclesiasticall offices, and manie moe Romish 
statutes and traditions, almost without number : besides their high trangression dayly 
in their vaine will-worship of God, by reading over a few prescribed prayers and 
collects, which they haue translated verbatim out of the Mass-book, and which are 
yet taynted with manie popish hereticall errors and superstions, instead of true 
spirituall invocation vpon the name of the Lord. 

[iv | These and manie other greevous enormities are amongst them, not suffred 
only but with a high hand mainteyned, and Gods servants, which by the powre of his 
Word and Spirit witnes against & condemne such abhominations, are both they & their 
testimonie, reiected, persecuted & plasphemed. What a wofull plight then are such 
people in, how great is their iniquitie, how fearfull indgments doo abide them: wee 
have therfore, for their sakes, manifested this onr Confession of and vowed obedience 
vnto that Fayth which was once gyven vnto thea Saincts, wherby they may bee 
drawne (God shewing mercy vnto them) vnto the same faith and obedience with vs, 
that they perish not in their sinnes. For how could wee behould so manie soules of 
our dear Contrymen to dye before our eyes & wee hould our peace: And wheras 
they have been heertofore greatly abused by their tyme-serving Priests, beeing givé to 
vnderstad that wee were a dangerous people, holding manie errors, renting our selves 


1 Lords? 

* Arch Bbs. L.[ord] Bbs. Suffragans, Chancellors, Deanes, Arch-Deacds, 
Commissaries, Officials, Doctors, Proctors, Registers, scribes, Purcevants, Sum- 
moners, Subdeans, chaplaines, Prebédaries, Cannons, Peti-Canons, Gospellers, 
pistellers Chanters, Sub-chanters, Vergiers, organ-players, (ueristers, Parsons, 
Vicars, Curats, Stipendaries, Vagrant-Preachers, Priests, Deacons or half Priests, 
Churchwardens, Sidemé Collectors, Clerks, Sextins. 

aGen. 4. Num, 12. a Jude 3. 


PREFACE TQ; THE CONFESSION 51 


from the tue Church, because of some infirmities in men, some falts in their worship, 
Ministerie, Church-gouvernment, etc. that wee were Donatists, Anabaptists, Brown- 
ists, Schismaticks, &c. these few leaves (wee trust) shal now cleer vs of these and such 
like criminations, and satisfie anie godly hart, yea every reasonable man, that will but 
with an indifferent ear heare our cause. For wee have always protested, and doo by 
these presents testifie vnto all mé, that wee neyther our selves doo, neyther accompt 
it lawfull for others to seprrate fro anie true church of Crist, for infirmities falts or 
errors whatsoever except their iniquitie bee come to such an heith, that for obstinatie 
they cease to be a true visible Church, aud bee refused and forsaken of God. And for 
this their renowmed Church of England, weea have both by word and writing, 
proved it vnto them to bee false and counterfeit, deceyving hir children with vaine 
titles of the word, Sacraments, Ministerie, &c. having indeed none of these in the or- 
dinance and powre of Christ emongst them. They have been shewed, that the people 
in Their Parish-assemblies, neyther were nor are meet stones for Gods house, meet 
members for Christs glorious body, vntill they 2 bee begotten by the seed of his word 
vnto fayth, and renewed by repentance. Their generall irreligious profannes ignor- 
ance, Atheisme and Machevelisme on the one side, & publique Idolitrie, vsuall blas- 
phemie, swearing, lying, kylling, stealing, whoring, and all maner of imptetie [im- 
piety] on the other side,c vtterly disableth them from beeing Citizens in the new 
Hierusalem, sonnes of God & heires with Christ and his Saints, vntill they become 
new creatures. Their slavish bondage vnto the antichristiaen tyrannous Prelats, 
whom they celibrate and honour as their Lords & reverend Fathers spiritnall, accept- 
ing their popish Canons and Iniunctions for laws in their Church, their marcked 
Priests, Preachers, Parsons, and Vicars &c. in lewe of Christs true Pastors and 
Teachers, running to their Courts and Consistories at every summons &c. doo mani- 
fest ¢ whose servants they are, & to whom they yeeld their obedience. Their learned 
Ministerie even from the highest Arch-prelat to the lowest Vicare & half-Priest, thath 
[hath] been, by the powre of our Lord Jesus Christ, cast down into the smoky fornace 
of that pyt of bottomles diepth e from whence they arose, revealed by the light of his 
word, to bee strange, false, popish & antichristian, the very same, and no other, then 
were hatched and advanced in their Metropolitane Sinagoge of Rome, from whence 
they have feched the very patterne nnd mould of their Church, Ministerie, Service & 
Regiment, even the very expresse Character and image of that first wild beast of 
Italy, as all in whom anie spark of true light is, may easely discerne. With these and 
manie other lyke weightie arguments have wee pleaded against that our whorish 
mother, hir Priests and Prelats, which as a heavie mylstone presseth hir down to hell: 
for the vyalls of Gods wrathfull iudgments are powred vpon them, which maketh 





a Conferences betwixt certeine Preachers and prysoners Marc, 1590’. Discoverey 
of the false Church 1590. Refutation of Mr. Giffard prynted. 1591.° 

baie eter 1, 23. John 3,3. 

Sereevels2i. 27. 2 Cor. 5, 17. Hzech. 44,9. Act 8, 37. 

Bamomeo 10, Mat.6,.24. Reue. 13, 16, & 14,9. 10. &c. 

e See Revel. 9, 3. with their owne annotatation, vpon that place. 2 King. 16, 
webb ccc. kev. 13, 14; Hos. 2,2. Rev. 16, 10, II. 


1 (Barrowe & Greenwood], A collection of certaine Letters and Conferences, lately passed 
Betwixt Certaine Preachers, & Two Prisoners in the Fleet [Dort], 1590. 

2 Barrowe, A Brief Discouerie of the false Church, etc. [Dort], 1590. 

3 Barrowe & Greenwood, A Plaine Refvtation of M. Giffards Booke, tntituled, A short 
treatise gainst the Donatistes of England, etc. [Dort], 1501. 


52 THE CONFESSION OF 1590 


them so to [v] storme rage and curse, gnawing their tongues for sorrow & payne 
of these wounds, and not yet finding grace to repent of and turne from their sinnes. 
For when wee have proclamed this our testimonie against them, how have they be- 
haved themselves, but as savage beasts renting and tearing vs with their teeth, never 
daring to come vnto the triall of the word of God, eyther by free wryting or confer- 
ence, but greedily hunting after Christs poore lambes, and so manie as they could get 
into their pawes, misvsing their bodyes with all exqvisite tyrannie in long and lament- 
able emprisonment, bedsies [besides] despight and reproches without mesure. So that 
through their barbarous crueltie* 24. soules have perished in their prisons, with in the 
Cittie of London only, (besides other places of the Land) & that of late yeeres. 
Manie also have they, by their immanitie, caused to blaspheme and forsake the faith 
of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, and many mo they terrifie and keep from the same. 
For all this, yet were not these savage men satisfied, though blood in abonndance ran 
out of their wyde mouths, but they procured certeine of vs (after manie yeeres 
emprisonment) to be indighted, arrayned, condemned and hanged as felons (how 
uniustly, thou Lord iust and true knowest) Henry Barrow, John Greenwood, and 
John Penry, whose perticular examinations araignments and maner of execution, 
with the circumstances about them, if thou didst truly vnderstand (gentle Reader) it 
would make thy hart to bleed, considering their vnchristian and vrinaturall vsage. 
About the same tyme they executed also one William Denis,! at Thetford in North- 
folke, and long before they kylled two men, at Bury in Suffolk, Coppyn and Elias,’ 
for the like testimonie. Others they deteyne in their prysons to this day, who looke 
for the like measure at their mercelesse hands, yf God in mercye release them not be- 
fore. Our God (wee trust) will one day rayse vp an other John Fox, to gather and 
_compile the Actes and Monuments of his later Martyrs, for the vew of posteritie, tho 
yet they seem to bee buryed in oblivion, and sleep in the dust. Then will this last 
infernall Clergie alsoo appeere in their proper colours, and be found nothing inferi- 
our to their bloody predecessours in poysoned malice and and tyrannie, but rather even 
to exceed them, in regard of the tyme. Alas for our poore Countreye, that it should bee 
so againe defiled with the blood of the seints, which cryeth lowde from vnder the 
Altar, and speaketh no beter things for it, then did the blood ofa Habel. Needs 





* In Newgate Mr. Crane a man about 60 yeers of age Richard Jacson, Thomas 
Stevens, William Howton, Thomas Drewet, John Gwalter, Roger Ryppon, Robert 
Awoburne, Scipio Bellot, Robert Bowle, John Barnes beeing sic vnto death, was 
caryed forth & departed this lyfe shortly after. Mothor Maner of 60. yeers, Mother 
Roe of 60. yeers, Anna Tailour, Judeth Myller, Margaret Farrer beeing sick vnto 
death was caried forth, and ended hir lyfe within a day or two after. John Purdy in 
Brydwel, Mr. Denford in the Gate-house about 60. yeers of age. Father Debnham in 
the white-lyon about 70. yeers, George Bryty in Counter wood street, Henry Thomso 
in the clynk, John Chandler in the Connt. Poultry, beeing sick vuto death was 
carryed forth & dyed within few dayes. Waltar Lane in the Fleet, Thomas Hewet in 
Counter Woodstreet.® 

eens, 10) 

1 Of him nothing is known beyond the fact above given. Even Bradford knew no details, 
Young, Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers, Boston, 1844, p. 427. 

2 John Coppin and Elias Thacker of Bury St. Edmunds. Executed for circulating Browne’s 
books on June 4 and 5, \1583. See Dexter, Cong. as seen, p. 208-210. 


3 Unfortunately we know nothing of most of these men and women. Regarding Roger Rip- 
pon see Dexter, Cong. as seen, p. 207. 


PREFACE TO THE CONFESSION 53 


must the righteons Lord reserue a fearfull vengeance for such a Land, and make it an 
example to all Natons, yf speedely they purge not thewselnes [themselves] by notable 
repentance. But oh how far are they from this, which harden their harts against vs, 
as did the Egiptians, and cease not to add vnto their formor iniquities, still pursuing 
vs with their accustomed hatred, who seeke the welfare of their soules, & Offer them 
the things which concerne their peace, which they refuse. Thy peace o England 
hath wrought thy woe, and thy long prosperitie, thy ruin, thou hast been fat, thou 
has waxed grosse, thy hart is covered, thow hast forsaken the God that made thee, and 
despised the rock of thy salvation, thy sinnes have reached vp to Heaven, & God 
hath remembred thine iniquities to gyue vnto thee according to thy worcks. Behold, 
the tempest of the Lord is gon forth with wrath, the wirlewinde that hangeth over 
shall light vpon the heads of the wicked, the indignation of the Lords wrath shall not 
returne vntill hee hane [have] doon, and vntil hee hane performed the intents of his 
hart: In the later dayes thow shalt vnderstand it.* Our God shew mercy to them 
that are his in thee, and hastely draw them out ot the fire, that they perish not in thy 
sinnes. And most of all wee are sorie for our dread sovereigne Queen, whom wee 
haue alwayes loued, reverenced and obeyed in the Lord, that shee should so bee 
drawn by the subtle suggestion of the Prelats to smyte hir faithfullest subjects 
ha[vi]ving hir finger so deep in the blood of Gods children, wherby shee hath not 
only defiled hir precious soule in the eyes of hir God, but also brought an evill 
name vpon hir meek and peaceable Government heere on Earth, in all Nations rownd 
aboul hir who doo with greef behold that Land to persecute and waste true Christians 
now, which was erewhiles an harbour and refuge for Christians persecuted in other 
places. But as wee are verily perswaded that hir Matis. clemencie hath been much 
abused by the wretched vnconcionable false reports and instigations of the Priests, so 
will wee not cease (though wee bee exiled hir Dominions) with fervent harts to desier 
hir Highnesse prosperitie, & pray that hir sinnes may bee forgiven hir, lamenting that 
Gods benefits, and great delyverances, should so soone of hir bee forgotton, & so ill 
requited, by this hard vsage of his poore servants for his sake. And if shee proceed 
in this course, alas how shall shee ever bee able to behold the face of hir God with 
comfort ; wherfore our soules shall weep in secret for hir, and wee will not cease to 
pray the Lord to shew hir mercy, and open hir eyes before shee dye. And lykewyse 
for those honorable Peeres hir grave Councellors, who also have consented to this our 
hard measure, although our innocencie hath been sufficiétly manifested vnto the co- 
sciéces of some of the cheefest of thé, our humble reqnest is, that they in the feare of 
God may weigh their proceedings against vs, & rcméber [remember] their accompt 
that they shall shortly make ynto the Judge of heavé and earth,{° where Christ will 
reckon vnto them al the tribulations of his poore despised members on earth, as if they 
had been inflicted vpon his own glorious person, and will render reward accordingly. 
The Lord giue them true wisdome, that they may learne, at last, to kisse the Soone be- 
fore hee bee angry, and they prrish in the way.{° As for the Priests and Preachers of 
the land, they, of all other men, haue bewrayed their notable hypocrisie, that stand- 
ing erewhile against the English Romish hierachie, and their popish abhominations, 
haue now so redely submytted themselves to the Beast, and are not only content to 
yeeld their canonicall obedience vnto him, and receiue his mark, but in most hostile 





* Och that they were wise, then would they vnderstand this, they would consider 
their later end. Deut. 32 29. 
Poiat. 10. 40. 41. & 25.44. 45. f° Psal. 2. 10. 


54 THE CONFESSION OF 1596 


maner oppose and set themselues against vs, not ceasing to add vnto our aflictions, 
scorning and reviling vs, and alienating the mynds of manie simple harted people, 
whoe are (wee doubt not) inclinable enough ynto the truth, were it not that these their 
lying Prophets did strengthen their hands, that they may not returne from their 
wicked wayes, by promising them lyfe and peace, where no peace is. These haue 
long busied themselues in seeking out new shifts and cavills to turne away the truth, 
which presseth them so sore, and haue at last been dryven to palpaple & grosse ab- 
surdities, seeking to dawbe vp that ruinous autichristan muddy wall, which them- 
selves did once craftily vndermine. And heerin wee report vs to the learned 
discourses of Dr. Robert Some,! and Mr. Giffard,? who haue so referced their wryt- 
ings with reproches, slanderous vntruths, and false collections on the one side, and 
manifest digressions, shiftings & turnings from the state of the question in hand, on 
the other side, as wee think the lyke presidents can hardly be shewed in anie wrytings 
of controversie in these times, and specially Mr. Giffards last answere? which (it 
seemeth) hee did in haste: whcrin besides his boyes-play, in skipping over many 
whol leaves of his adversaries booke, (leaving thé both vnanswered & vntouched) hee 
hath so wisely caryed himself in those things which hee professeth to answere, as a 
man afrayd once to come neere the battel and mayne coutroversie in hand, running 
out into vaine and frutlesse excursories, never approving by the word of God the 
places and offices of his Lords the Prelats, with their retinue, Courts, Canons, &c. 
neither the publick worship, ministerie, or people of this their Church of England. 
No hee knew well his adversaries were fast locked & wached in pry[vii]son from wryt- 
ing anie more, and their books intercepted, so that few men could come to the view 
of them: Hee might therfore deale as hee lysted himself for his own best advantage, 
and beare the people in hand that hee had confuted the Brownists and Donatists, for 
the prynt was as free for him, as the close pryson for them. But God (wee trust) will 
give meanes one day, that some things, which as yet are hid, shall come to light. In 
the meane tyme, thow for thy satisfying (Christian Reader) examin the mans wryt- 
ings, and see how hee hath answered vnto these criminations, or purged his Church of 
them. Look what scriptures hee hath brought for defence of his spirituall Lords, 
their places and procedings, their Courts, Cannons, Dignities, &c. what warrant 
in Christs Testament hee hath found for his service-booke and all the abhominable rites 
therin, for his Angelles, Saincts and Lady-days, popish Fastes, Lent, Embers and 
Eves: How hee hath approved their English missall Prayers, Letanie, Collects aud 
Trentalls, their maryng, burying, churching of women, wretched abuse of both Sac- 





1R,. Some, A Godly Treatise containing and deciding certaine questions, mooued of late 
in London and other places touching the Mintsterie, Sacraments, and Church. London, 1588; 
Ibid, A Defence of such points tn R. Somes last treatise as M. Penry hath dealt against, etc., 
London, 1588; Ibid, A Godly Treatise wherein are examined & confuted many execrable fan- 
cies giuen out & holden, partly by Hen. Barrowe and lohn Greenwood: partly by other of 
the Anabaptisticall order, etc., London, 1589. 

Some was rector of Girton and master of Peterhouse Coll., Cambridge, a man somewhat in- 
clined to Puritanism. For his biography see Cooper Athenee Cantabrigitenses, ii: 510-3. 

2G. Gifford, A Short Treatise against the Donatists of England, whome we call Brown- 
zsts, etc., London, 1590; Ibid, A Platne Declaration that our Brownists be full Donatists, etc., 
London, 1590; Ibid, A short Reply unto the last printed books of Henry Barrow and Tohn 
Greenwood, etc., London, 1591. 

Gifford was a prominent and learned Puritan, vicar of Maldon, Essex, and a sufferer for the 
Puritan cause. See Brook, Lzves of the Puritans, London, 1813, ii: 273-8; Bradley in Dict. Na- 
Zional Biog., XXi: 300. 

3 See previous note. 


PREFACE TO THE CONFESSION 

























































raments, their Romish Gossipps, hollowed Font, Crosse, inchanted Colle 
processions, bishopping of children, and a thowsand such like trnmperies, w 
all blamed vnto him. yea, come vnto their own Ministerie, & behold fron 
hee hath fetched the genealogie of those Anakims and horned heads of the 
Archbbs, Lordbbs, Deanes, Arch-Deacons, Chancellors, &c. or of their Mr. 
Vicar, Curat, and the rest of that rable: How hee approveth their offices, elle 
callings, entrace, administrations, Bishopricks, Deanries, Prebends, benefices, 
the ordinance of our Lord Jesus in his newe Testament / left vnto his Church 
worlds end. 

These are some of the innumerable abhominations, wherwith wee charged 
Church, which they must eyther justifie by Gods word, or cleere their Church of t 
Now hee that findeth not these things approved in his wrytings, may easely per 
how hee hath uever [never] medled with the mayne coutroversie between vs. W 
fore eyther let him dischardge his Church of these accusations, or els must wee 
all Gods children still by the powre of the word of God condenme them, and s 
home againe these Romish wares into the Land of Shinar*° from whence they ca 
and the Lord that condemneth them is a strong God. 

On the other side wee desire the that they wold shew vs by the Scriptures 
errors wherwith they chardge vs, & for which they thus hate vs, what they reprou 
our Doctrine or practise. As for our selves, wee protest with simple harts in 
presence of God, and his holy Angelles, vnto al men, that wee doo not witting] 
willingly mataine anie one error against the word of truth (though wee doubt not 
as all other men wee are liable to error, which our God wee trust will in mercy f 
giue vnto vs,) but hold the grounds of Christian Religion with all Gods antie 
Churches in Judea, Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia a1 
Bythinia, and with all faythfull people at this day in Germanie, France, Scotland, th 
Lovv-Contries, Bohemia, and other Christian Churches rownd about vs, whose confes 
sions published}° wee call heere to wytnes the sinceritie of our [flaith, and our agreemen 
and ynitie with them in the points of greatest moment and controversie between vs anc 
our adversaries. And wheras our Preachers were wont to tell vs, that their Churcl 
holdeth the foundation and substantiall grounds of Rilligion, Faith in God and Justi- 
fication by Christ alone, &c. and therfore, notwithstanding their wants and corrup- 
tions, they had the essence, lyfe and beeing of a true people of God: wee trust now 
they will let vs that make the lyke plea, find the lyke favour, & accompt of vs asa 
true Congregation of Christ, and blaspheme vs no longer by the names [viii] of 
Brownists, Donatists, Anabaptists, Schismaticks &c. for will they slay those that 
Christ gyveth lyfe vnto? shall profession of faith saue them, and shall yt not vs lyke- 
wise, that make the same profession? Or yf they take exception at ours, let them 
shew what one truth they hold, wherin wee agree not with thé, or what good thing 
they have in practice, that wee do not the samew. ee [same. We] worship the true 





Peeaezoe20. Leb. 1, 2:. Eph: 4. 11; 12.13. Gal. 1. 9. 10. 
eeeaen.- 5. 11. 
+° Harmanie of Confess.! 


1 The collection here referred to is the Harmonia Confessionum Fidet Orthodoxarum, et 
Reformatarum LEcclesiarum, quae in preciputs quibusgue Europe Regnis, Nationibus, ez 
Provinctis, sacram Evangelit doctrinam pure profitentur: . . . Geneva, 1581. An English 
translation was published at Cambridge in 1586. This was the chief general epitome of the doctrines 
of the Reformed (Calvinistic) Churches, with some Lutheran creeds added. See Schaff, Creeds of 
Christendom, New York, 1877, I: 354. 


THE CONFESSION OF 1590 



























spirit and truth,*° having his word truly taught, his Sacraments rightly admin- 
t such tyme as our God vouchafeth vs the meanes for administration of thé 
That ministerie of Pastors, Teachers, Elders, Deacons, &c. which they som- 
tood for,! wee (through Gods great mercy) obteyned them before their faces, 
they yet never did. That government of Christ by his own lawes, ordinances, 
‘censures (which they call Discipline) wee faithfully obey and execute:g receiving 
yur societie all that with faith and repentance come vnto vs willingly:% casting 
Paine, and removing by the powre of our Lord Jesus Christ all notorious & ob- 
e sinners, hereticks, schismaticks, or wicked lyvers whosoever, without respect 
rrsons. Only wee reiect the abominable Romish reliques which they yet retein 
mainteine, to the high dishonour of God. And for the sinnes wherwith wee 
rge them, they are so apparant, as even our forest adversarie somtymes confessed 
complayned of them, & that in great measure openly, muchmore secretly emongst 
nselves, as is well known. But let vs heare themselves speak, as they have pub- 
ed in prynt to the view of the world. Of their people, the members of their 
urch they gyve this commendation.’ 

z The greaeest multitude, by many partes doo not vnderstand 
e Lords prayer, the ten Commandements, or the articles of the 
ith, or the Doctrine and vse of the Sacraments, in anie competent 
pasure. There bee thouvvsands, which bee men & vvoemen 
ovvne, vvhich if a man aske them bozw [how] they shalbee saued, 
rey cannot tell. As for vvickednesf® in pryde, euvie, hatred, and 
ll sinnes that can bee named almost, yt doth overflow: & yet you 
re not ashmed to say, are they not C/ristians? Concerning their 
yn ministerie and government, they haue lykewise& complayned 
hovv they lack both a rig#t Ministerie of God, and a right govern- 
ment of Ais Church, according to the Sc/riptures. More perticu- 
larly7 That that propane iurisdiction of Lordly Lord Arc’. bb’. 
Bb’. Arch-Deacous, CAancellors, Officials, &c. are contrary to Gods 
government, and vvAolly vnderpropt by t#e Canon and popisZ law, 





*° Thou Lord preparest a table before vs in sight of our adversaries. Psal. 23. 5. 
££ Act, SAT: 

At Mat. 18. 8.007; pl Cor. 5. oe Lit, 32 TOs Om ieee 

? Dialogue of the strife of their Church, Page. gg.° 

t° Are not these meet stones now for gods hous? 1 Pet. 2.5.9. Heb. 8.11. 
& Admonition to the Parl. in the Preface, defended by T. C.# 

/ Table of Articles propounded by the Divinitie Reader in Cambridg. T. C.° 


1 Reference is here made to the Puritan wing of the Church of England which desired many 
of these reforms but refused to separate from the Establishment. So also in the succeeding passages. 

2 These quotations are in Roman, mixed with Italics. 

3.4 Dialogue concerning the strife of our churche . . . wtth a briefe declaration of 
sone such monstrous abuses, as our Byshops haue not bene ashamed to foster. London? 1584. 

4 Cartwright is meant. The original work quoted was, I suppose, that by J. Field and T. 
Wilcox of London, Az Admonttion to Parliament. London, 1571. This was answered by Whit- 
gift and defended by Cartwright in a series of pamphlets. 

5 With the bibliographical means at my disposal I am unable fully to identify the work of 


Cartwright indicated. 


* 


PREFACE TO THE CONFESSION 57 


and zwithall ioyned with Aypocrisie, vaineglorie, lordlines & tyran- 
nie, eué for these respects, if ter were no more, are to bee vtterly 
rooted out of the Church, except possible wee meane by reconcilia- 
tion to mage Cf/rist and anticfrist friends. Item that that ougly 
& ylfauored Ayerarchie or Church-princelynes, which instituted at 
the first by Antichrists devise, did afterward vilely serue the Pope 
of Rome to accompliske the mysterie of iniquitie, and to distroy 
the Church of Christ, and dotz yet still at tis day serue Zim, must 
bee so abolised tat no remnants, ne yet anie shew therof re- 
mayne, yf so bee wee will [ix] haue C/rist to reign ouervs. Item xz 
that the Lord Gouerners of their Church bee Peti-popes, & Peti- 
Anticfrists, and Biskops of tke Deuill. 


These? Testimonies have wee from their own wrytings,* and manie such lyke. 
For these impieties haue wee seperated our selues from those cages of vncleane byrds, 
following theo counsell of the Holy-Gost, lest wee should communicate with their 
sinnes, and bee partakers of their plagues. With what equitie now can these Priests 
so blaspheme and persecute vs for reiecting the heavie yoke of their tyranous Prelats, 
whom they themselues call antichristian & Bishops of the Devill: for forsaking their 
Priesthood, which they haue complayned is not the right Ministerie. With what 
conscience could Mayster Giffard (of all other men)/ so vehemently charge vs with 
intollerable pryde, presumption, and intrusion into Gods iudgment seate, to judg and 
condemn wholl assembles which professe the Faith of Christ sincerely &c. in most 
savage and desperate maner to rend and teare vp the weake plants &c. The Lord 
rebuke Sathan, and iudge betwixt vs. Our enimies cheefest arguments against vs 
hitherto, haue been reproch and cursed speaking, with violence and oppression. But 
let them know and vnderstand, that for all these things God wil bring them vnto 
iudgment, whé they shall receiue such recompence of their error and wickednes as is 
meet. 

The last and great scandall which offendeth manie and turneth them out of the 
way, is the seed of discord which Sathan hath sought to sowe emongst our selues, set- 
ting variance emong brethren, prevayling mightely in the children of perdition, whom 
hee hath eyther turned back into apostacie, or dryven into heresie or schisme. Heerby 
hee hath caused the truth of God to bee much evill spoken of, and to suffer great re- 
proch at our aduersaries hands, whoe haue long wayted for our halting. Such things 
(good Reader) are neyther new nor strange vnto vs,* (though much to bee lamented,) 


m In the same Table. 

n Martin Marprelat.! 

Ween iO, 14. 1sa,52,11. Jir. 51.9. Act.2,40. 2Cor.6.17. Rev. 18, 4. 
p Answere to the Brownists, pag. 4. & 50.° 


1 Regarding the tracts published under this pseudonym see, 7zter alia, Dexter, Cong. as seen, 
PP. 131-202. 

2 Black Letter again. 3 7, e, Those of the Puritans. 

4Some of the quarrels in this church, always a discordant body, are described by Dexter, 
Cong. as seen, pp. 271-35%. 

5 The reference fits Gifford’s Plaine Declaration that our Brownists be full Donatists, 
London, 1590, better than his Short Reply unto the last printed books of Henry Barrow and 
John Greenwood, London, 1591. 


1 


58 THE CONFESSION OF 15096 


yt beeing the lot of Christs Church *° to haue such trobles within yt self, and as inci- 
dent to the same as is the crosse of outward tribulation. Neyther can anie that 
knoweth*the state of Gods people, or the word of God aright, looke for other things 
in this world, where wee are but strangers’ & pylgrims, warring against manie and 
mightie adversaries, even the Prince of darknes, with his band of spirituall wicked- 
nesses. wee are taught of Goda that ther must bee discentiOs & heresies emOgst 
our selves, that they which are approved may bee knowne,é that greevous wolves 
should enter in emongst vs, and of our selves men arise, speaking perverse things to 
draw away disciples after them. By such suborned guests of satan doth oure Lord 
sift & trye vs, whither wee love him with our wholl harts or no. wherfore thoughd 
never so many forsake vs, & oure owne frends dele vnfaithfully with vs, f yet wee 
know assuredly it shalbe well with Israell, even to the pure in hart. when wee call 
to mynde,z the murder of Cain,/ the deviding of Cham,z the flowting of Ismael, % the 
hatred of Esau,/ the envie of the Patriarks,#z the rebellion of Corah,z the conspiracie 
of Absalon,o the treason of Judas,f the hypocrisie of Ananias and Saphira, g the 
Apostacie of Demas,7 the heresie of Nicholas, and manie suchlike mischevous prac- 
tises in old tyme, with in the housholds of the Saincts, and Churches of God, wee 
mervell not though in these last & evill dayes some childré of Belial, that were of old 
ordeyned vnto this condemnation, rise vp in the Church and work the vnrest and sor- 
row of the same. The tyme is come that itudgment must begin at the house of God, 
the Lord will proue vs to the vtmost, and suffer Sathan to wynnow vs as wheat, but 
Peters Faith is prayed for that it fayle not, and hee that shall contynue to the end, 
hee shalbee saued. This is our comfort, that God will heerby purge his vine, and dis- 
close [x] the disguysed hypocrits which come ynto vs in sheeps garments, but his own 
portion hee will bring thorow the fire, and fine them as the Silver is fined, and will 
trye them as the Gold is tryed, to the prase & glory of his own great name.*° These 
things are stumbling blocks vnto the blynde and hard harted worldlings, who haue no 
loue vnto the truth, nor wilbee brought vnto the obedience of the same. It is iust 
with God to let them bee offended by such things. But hee knoweth to delyuer the 
godly out of temptation. Let him therfore that readeth consider, & the Lord gyue 
him vnderstanding in all.{° Weigh all things vprightly in the ballance of the Sanctu- 
arie, and iudg righteous iudgment. Bee not offended at the sunplicitie [simplicity] of 
the Gospell, neyther hold the Faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ in respect of 
mens persons. Gods cause shall stand when al that handle yt amisse shall fall before 
yt.{° Wee offer heere our Fayth to the view and tryall of all men. Try all things 
and keep that which is good: and yf thou shalt reape anie frute by these our labors 
(gentel Reader) gyue God the glory. 


Though Babel should mount up to heauen, and though she should defend 
hir strengh on high, Yet from me shall hir destroyers come saith the Lord. 
Lerem. 51. 53. 

Saue vs 0 Lord our God and gather vs from among the nations, for to 
celebrate thy holy name, For to glory in thy prayse. Psal. 106. 47. 


FOL Jan. iA. eae t1;) 15. 6 Act. 20,120 790: 
CDet ATI. d Joh. 6, 5,6. e Loam) iyi: 

FE SAL, 1735 1s 2 Gen."4. h Gen. 9. 

L ASOT a & Gen. 27. / Gen237: 

nu Num, 16. m2 Sam. 15. o Mat. 26. 

Dp Acts: g2 Tim. 4. r Revel. 2. 


%0 2:Thes,:2) 10.; 1 best amet aagenr chars: f° Mat. 11. 5. 6. 


TEXT OF THE CONFESSION 59 


[xi] A’ TRVE CONFESSIon or THE FAITH, AND HVMBLE 
ACKNOVVLEDGMENT OE THE ALEgeance, vvhich vve hir Maiesties 
Subjects, falsely called Brovvnists, doo hould tovvards God, and 
yeild to hir Majestie and all other that are ouer vs in the Lord. 
Set dovvn in Articles or Positions, for the better & more easie 
vnderstanding of those that shall read yt: And published for the 
cleering of our selues from those vnchristian slanders of heresie, 
schisme, pryde, cbstinacie, disloyaltie, sedicion, &c. vvhich by our 
adversaries are in all places given out against vs. 


Wee belecue with our hearts & confes with our mouths. 
Hat ther is but* one God, one Christ, one Spirit, one Church, 
if one truth, one Faith,” one Rule of obedience to all Chris- 
tians, in all places. 


pet Ged boca ts, Aen viark. 12) 20,32.) Eph, 4.94) 5. 6. 1 Cor. 12, 13. 
Pe oom ow 20, 1. Cor. 4,17. .0,16. 1." Gal. 1, 8. 9. 


2 That God is a °Spirit, whose* beeing is of himself, and® 
giveth beeing, moving, and preservation to all other things beeing 
himself’ eternall, most holy, every way infinit, in greatnes, vvis- 
dome, povvre, goodnes, justice, truth, &c. And that in this God- 
head there bee three® distinct persons "coeternall, coequall, & *co- 
essentiall, beeing every one of thé one & the same God, & ther- 
fore not divided but distinguished one frd another by their sev- 
erall & peculiar propertie: The 'Father of none, the Sonne™ be- 
gotten of the Father from everlasting, the holy "Gost proceding: 
from the Father and the Sonne before all beginnings. 

Oi ouper weave cisxod, 9714. sa; 43, 10,11, .¢Rom. 11,36. Act 17, 28. 
Pemimemetetin. t 17. Ren, 4.18. Esa. 6,3. and.66. 1.2. Psal. 145, 3..8. 9. 
Beare eh OM.) 1,20. @E. Jon. 5, 7. Mat. 28,19. . Hag. 2, 5.6. Heb. 
mir 00.22. Jou. I. 1. beb, o, 14. .iPhil. 2,6. Joh. 5,18. .Eph. 4; 
Sue 1 10, 30..39. 71 Corint. 211,12: Heb. 1,3. 1lJoh. 5, 26. 1Cor, 
Pe Ol. t, 14. 18: & 3. 16.) Mica. 5,2. Psal. 2,7. . nJoh. 14, 26. & I. 16. 
Gal. 4, 16. 

meinat God° hath decreed in himself from everlasting 
touching all things, and the very least circumstances of every 
thing, effectually to vvork and dispose thé according to the coun- 
sell of his ovvn vvill, to the prayse and glorie of his great name.. 
And touching his cheefest Creatures that God hath in? Christ® be-. 
fore the foundation of the world,’ according to the good pleasure 
of his vvill,* ordeyned som men and Angells, to eternall lyfe to 


1 The Confession is printed in Roman, with the texts on the margin of the page. I have put: 
the texts after each section for convenience, following in this the Latin edition of 1598. 


60 THE CONFESSION OF 1596 


beet accomplished through lIesus Christ, to the ’prayse of the 
glorie of his grace. Andon thother hand hath lievvise “ before 
of old accoraing* to his iust purpose” ordeined other both Angels 
and men, toe ternall condemna-[xii]tion, to bee* accomplished 
through their own corruption to the* prayse of his iustice. 

OHsa, 46, 10.. RO. 11, 94.°952.36) | Act.:15, 18..<% 2,22) Gens see 
Mat..10, 29, 30. and 20. 15... Ephed, 11: pEph./1, 3. 4. 12. qiDiice aes 
G4.) 1 Uph.t, 5. Rom. 9, 11,.%2,.13- Mal. 3,2. 2, Lim. 2) .92)) Serie 
Bpbho 1, 4.5. 1. Tim.'s, 21 Mat, 25,.31.34. tEphes: 1, 507. 10. Gohmneuues 
i7, 19. 19... 2. 10, Rom. 8, 19.30. Rev. 19. 10. veph. 5,6 to O)0i fw 
ver. 4. xRom. 0, Il. 12. 15. 17. 18. with Mal. 1, 3. Exod: 9. 16. syJud*yeneas 
&'G.. ro 9, 22. Mat.25; 41, 22. Pet..2, 12. °2..Cor. 4, 3.04.) iipete2 eee 
Bet. PTO Osis EeEOUL 3, 5,000, 22, 

4 That in the ‘beginning God made all things of nothing 
very good: and “created man after his own image and lykenes in 
rigfteousnes and Aolines of trutk. That*® streigit ways after by 
the subtiltie of the Serpent which Sathan vsed as his instrument‘ 
himself zitk Ais Angells Zaving sinned before and not kept their 
first estate, but left their own Aabitation; first "Eva, then Adam by 
Air meanes, did wittingly & willingly fall into disobedience & 
transgression of the commadement of God. For the which death® 
reigned over all: yea even! ouer infants also, whick have not 
sinned, after the lyke maner of the transgression of Adam, tat is, 
actually: Yet are* all since the fall of Adam begotten in his own 
likenes after Zis image, beeing conceyued and borne in iniquitie, 
and soo by nature the chi/dren of wrath and servants of sinne, 
and subiect to deat#, and all oter calamities due vnto sinne in 
this world and for euer. 


cGen. Col, 1,:16. Esa. 45,12. Heb. 11, 3. Revel: 4, 115 d@enueee 
26. 27, Eephod, 24. Eccles. 7, 31. eGen. 3, 1.°4.°5.. 2. Cor 1104 
44. £2. °Pet.:2,4.") Jon 6,44." Jud. 6. gGeénes..3.1.72. 3.6) -i.) ine 
Eccles. 7, 31. Gal 37722) hRom. 5, 12. 18. 19. and 6. 23) with senso eee 
iRom.'§. 14. and O;stameeect hs, | Psal, srs. “Epheo ag, 

5 That all manfinde beeing thus fallen and become alto- 
gether dead in sinne, & subiect to t#e eternall vvrath of God both 
by original? and actuall corruption: Te ‘elect are redeemed, 
quickned, raysed vp and saued againe, not of tZemselues, neit#er 
by vvorks, lest anie man sould bost Zimself; but vv/olly and 
only by God of fis free grace and mercy through faith in Christ 
Iesus,™ vvho of God is made vnto vs vvisdome, & righteousnes, 
& sanctificatio, & redemption, that according as it is vvritten, Hee 
that reioyceth let him reioyce in the Lord. 


TEXT OF THE CONFESSION 61 


IGen..3, 15: Eph. 2, 4.5. Gen. 15. 6. with Rom. 4,72) 3. 4: 5. and 3. 24. 
See On. 4.10. mt. Cor 1, 30. 31. Phil. 3, 8. o:itGn ate. 23. 5. 6. and 
Q. 23. 24. 

6 ‘That this therfore only is lyfe" eternall to 2novv the only 
true God, & vvhom hee hath sent into the vvorld Iesus Crist. 
And that on the contrarie the °Lord vvill réder vengeance in 
flaming fire vnto them that knovv not God, & vvhich obey not 
the Gospell of our Lord Iesus Christ. 


Delon. (yes, adi 40s} its 903950345" 02; Thes. 2, 8. pbat, 6. joh. 
3, 36. 

7 That the rule of this £novvledge faith & obedience, con- 
cerning the Pvvorship & service of God & %all other christia 
dutyes, is not the ‘opinions, devises, lavves, or constitutions of 
mé, but the vvritten vvord of the everlyving God, conteyned in 
the canonicall bookes of the old and nevv Testament. 

Peo OS. On Det 4, 2705. 0. Gen. .6,0 22.9 Exod: °39,) 42:43. 1. 


ron 2s.10. .d.esal. 119. 105. risa: 29, 13. Mat. 15, 9. . Joh. 5, 30. 
Meru io. <2; tim. 3, 16.17. 


bo 


8 That in this vvord® Iesus Christ hath reveled vvatsoever 
his father thought needfull for vs to knovv, beleeue & obey as 
touching hist person & Offices, in’ vvhom all the promises of God 
are yea, & in vvhom they are Amen to the prayse of God through 
vs. 


Sct sialon Oh. fora 16, 05.@.4..25. Act.-3. 22. t the-whol Epis- 
tle to the Hebr. throughout, & 2. Cor. 1, 28. 


[xiii] 9 That touching his person, the Lord Iesus, of vvho* 
Moses & the Prophets vvrote, & vvho the Apostles preached, is the 
Yeverlasting Sonne of God, by eternall generation, the brightnes 
of his Fathers glorie, & the engrauen forme of his Person; coes- 
sentiall, coequall, & coeternall, god vvith him & vvith the holy 
Gost, by vvhd hee hath made the vvorlds, by vvhom hee vphould- 
eth and governeth all the works hee hath made; vvho also vvhen 
the? fulnes of tyme vvas come, vvas made man of a vvoman, of *the 
Tribe of /udah, of the °seed of Dauid & Abraham, to vvyt of 
Mary that blessed Virgin, by the holy Ghost comming vpon hir, & 
the povvre of the most high ouershadovving hir; & vvas also® in all 
things lyke vnto vs, sinne only excepted. 

x Luk. 24, 44. Joh. 5, 46. Act. 10, 41. 43. y Pro. 8, 22. mica. 5,2. Joh. 
permease irieb.t. Collos..1 15.16: 17. z Gal. 4,4. Gen. 9)eieneaiepay, 
fimeeicevel, 5. 5.. b Rom: I, 3. Gen. 22, 18. Mat. 1. 1. ete. Lukegyasrete 


Perr eiias Luk, 1.26. 27, etc. .Hebr. 2,16. c Heb. 4. 15. Esanegug geo, 
i 0 oe as 


62 THE CONFESSION OF 1596 


1o That touching his Office, hee* only is made the Mediator 
of the nevv Testament, even of the euerlasting Couenant of grace 
betvveen God & man, to bee perfectly & fully the ‘Prophet, Priest 
& King of the Church of God for euermore. 

di.Tim. 2,5. Hebo.tsmaga20. Dan. 924..25. | ¢ Dent: ie etre 
Psal. 110.4; Psal. 45; “Esa.’ 9,607. “Act. 5. 31.- Esa. 55.4. Ghiepagrea 
ew, S263 5s 

11 Zhat hee’ vvas frd euerlasting, by the iust & sufficient 
authoritie of the father, & in respect of his manhood fr6 the womb, 
called & seperated heervnto, & anoynted also most fully & abound- 
antly vvith all necessarie gifts, as is ® vvritten; God hath not meas- 
ured out the Spirit vnto him. 


i Pro. 8, 23: Esa. 42,6. & 49. 1..5. and 11, 203. 4:95. DACt 10195 supe 
3, 34- 

12 That this” Office, to bee Mediator, that is, Prophet eiricas 
and King of the Church of God, is so proper to him, as neither in 
the whol, nor in anie part therof, it ca be trasferred fro him to 
anie other. 


hi. Tim. 2;,5. “Heb. 7: 24. Dan. 4. £4. Acti“ $12. Esa 4700 
1,33. 

13 Zhat touching his' Prop/ecie, Christ Aath perfectly re- 
vealed out of the bozome of his father, the vvholl vvord & vvill of 
God, that is needfull for his seruants, either ioyntly or seuerally to 
knovv, beleeue & obey: ‘That hee hath spoken & doth speake to 
his Church in his ovvn* ordinance, by his ovvn ministers and in- 
struments only, and not by anie false! ministrie at anie tyme. 

i Deu. 18, 15.288.) Act. 3, 22.23. 24. Mat.03,07. Job. 1. lemmas 
Eph. 1.8.9. 0 2.ffim-.73. 15. 16, 17." k Pro..9, 3. Joho13) 20, "i 
Mat. ro. 40. 41. Deur33, 8. 10. 1 Mat. 7, 15. 16..& 24.23. 24." 2) Peer 
Tim. 4.35 4.0 ixom moms viele 23/212). 2-7 10h v.10. 

14 That toching his™ Priestzood, beein consecrated, hee 
hath appeered once to put avvay sinne, by offring & sacrificing of 
himsell; and to thzs end hath: fully performed aud suffred all 
those things, by which God through the blood of that his crosse, 
in an acceptable sacrifice, might bee reconciled ‘to his elects 
having” broké dovvn the partition vvall, & ¢hervvith finished & re- 
moued al those legal rites, shadovves, & ceremonies, is now® en- 
tred vvithin the vayle into the holy of AHolies to the very heauen, 
and prescnce of God, vwvhere hee for euer lyueth, and sitteth at the 
right hand of Maiestie* appering before the face of his Father, to 
make intercession for [xiv] such as come vnto the Throne of grace 


TEXT OF THE CONFESSION 63 


by that nevv & living vvay; And not that only, but maketh his peo- 
ple a? spirituall hovvse, an holy Priesthood, to offer up spirituall 
sacrifices, acceptable to God through him. Neither doth the 
Father accept, or Christ offer anie other sacrifice, vvorship, or 
vvorshippers. 


Ponty. 1G-yelien.s, 7.5. 9. @ ot [9: 26] r. Esa, squudkane, io. 1. Pet. 
Bera Ollos.’ I. 20. Eph. 5, ou iene, te 4 1S, TG. plememceO. ~o EHeb. 
troy ar. 24, and LO, 19. 20: “Rom, 3,.34.° pt. Pet: 2).5. ‘Rev. 1, 5. 6. 
cues ato om..b2, fr.) Mar.9, 40:50. Mal.1, 14. ' Joh24 29. 24. Mat. 7, 
mp oe) MSA. I, 12x etc. 

15 That touching his? Aingdom, beeing risen, ascended, en- 
tred into glory, set at the right hand of God, al povvre in Heaven 
and earth giué vnto him; vvhich povvre hee’ novv exerciseth ouer 
all Angells and men, good and dad [bad], to the preservation and 
saluation of the elect, to the overruling and destruction of the 
reprobate ;* communicating and app/ying the benefits, virtue and 
frutes of his prophecy and Priesthood ynto his elect, namely to the 
remission, subduing, and takeing avvay of their sinnes, to their ius- 
tification, adoption-of-sonnes, regeneration, sanctification, pre- 
servation & strégthning in all their spirituall conflicts against 
Sathan, the vvorld & the flesh &c. continually dvvelling in, govern- 
ing & £eeping their hearts in his tue [true] faith and fear by his 
holy spirit, vvhich having* once givé yt, hee never taketh avvay 
from them, but by yt still begetteth and nourisheth in them repent- 
ence mraitn, loue, obedience, comfort, peace, ioy, hope, and all 
christian vertues, vnto immortallitie, notvvithstanding that yt be 
sometymes through sinne and tentation, interrupted, smothered, 
and as yt vvere overvvhelmed for the tyme. Againe on the con- 
trary,” ruling in the vvorld over his enimies, Sathan, and all the ves- 
sels of vvrath; limiting, vsing, restrayning them by his mightie 
povvre, as seemeth good in diuiue vvisdome and iustice, to the ex- 
ecution of his determinate counsell, to vvit to their seduction, 
hardning & condemnation, delyvering them vp to a reprobate 
mynde, to bee fept in darcknes, sinne and sensuallitie vnto iudg- 
ment. 

Series. A. etcan 1. Pe 3; 21.22. Mat..28,.18, 20. 4 Josh. 5;aa9 Zech 
Peete Marke tr) 27. tHebs 1.34. s Eph. 5, 26,27. Ro. 5, and’6.and 7, and 
Proper omar4, 7. Galis, 22: 23. I) Joh. 4,13. etc. t Psal 51 Tooire 12. 
eeeesOe 91-32. 33.34; - 10d. 33; 29. 30. Esa. 54, 3.°9. 10. Joh 1aj-T. and 
Sears eewrit Luc. 229.31. 92.40... 2, Cor. 12, 7.8. 9.. Eph, Gmig, at. ete, 
Peretz: ral. 5, 27. 22, 23, v Job. I, 6. and 2. Chap. srking2aa, 19. 
Peaet0,5: 25. Rom. 9, 17.18. Rom. 1, 21.:and 2. 4.5.6. Ephe4 770718. go. 
Beene. 3. ot: Lhess. 5) 3, 72) Esa. 57, 20. 21. 2. Pet. 2, the whol Chapter, 


- 


64 THE CONFESSION OF 1596 


16 That this Kingdom shall bee then fully perfected vvhen 
hee shal the* second tyme come in glorie vvith his mightie Angells 
vnto iudgment, to abolish all rule, authoritie and povvre, to put 
all his enimies vnder his feet, to seperate and free all his chosen 
from them for ever, to punish the vvicked vvith everlasting perdi- 
tion from his presence, to gather, ioyne, and carry the godly with 
himself into endlesse glory, and then to delyver, vp the Kingdome 
to God, even the Father, that so the glorie of the father may bee 
full and perfect in the Sonne, the glorie of the Sonne in all his 
members, and God bee all in all. 

x Dan. 12,92. 3; Joh 5;22. 28.29. Mat. 25, 31: “1. (Cor, 15-24) hiaiaa, 
Al. 49. “2, Thes. %,°9.. 10, 1. Thes. 4, 17." Joh. 17, 227239." i. Com igre 

[xv] 17 That in the meane tyme, bisides his absolute rule in the 
world, Christ hath here in earth a¥ spirituall Xingdome and & can- 
onicall regiment in his Church ouer his servants, which Church hee 
hath? purchased and redeemed to himself, as a peculiar inheritance 
(notwithstanding* manie hypocrites do for the tyme lurk emongest 
thé) "calling and winning them by the powre of his word vnto the 
faith, “seperating them from emongst vnbeleevers, from idolitrie, 
false worship, superstition, vanitie, dissolute lyfe, & works of dark- 
nes, &c; making them a royall Priesthood, an holy Nation, a peo- 
ple set at libertie to shew foorth the virtues of him that Aath called 
them out of darknes into his meruelous light, “gathering and znit- 
ing thé together as members of one body in his faith, loue and holy 
order, ygnto all generall and mutuall dutyes,® instructing & govern- 
ing thé by such officers and lawes as hee hath prescribed in his 
word; by which Officers and lawes hee governeth his Church, and 
by’ none other. 


y Joh, 13. 36. ~ Heb 3, 6. and 10. 21. 3. Tim, 3,45. “Zach. 4.907 eee 
20, 28: Tit. 2,14, a Mat. 13}.47. and 22,12: - Luk. 13,25. -b Man doe 
Col. ¥, 215) Cerys ory Tit. 3, 3. 4. §.. © Esa; 62.1%) Ez OG) oie 
2. Cor. 6, 14. Act. 27, 3. 4. and. 19.9. 1: Pets 2, 425: 9-25: d Hea 
Psal. I10, 3. Act..2 4%. Eph: 4,16. Col, 2, 5:6, .€ Esa; 62) 6.0) ))emeegeeen 
Ezek. 34. Zech. 11,8. Heb: 12, 28. 25. Mat. 28, 20. f£ Mat. 7) a5 -sancueeeees 
24. 2. Tim: 4,3. 4. jer. 7, 30. 31. and 23. 21.- Deuxr2, 32.) Rete ee 
¥8. 19 


18 That to this’ Church hee hath made the promises, and 
giuen the seales of his Covenant, presence, loue, blessing and _ pro- 
tection:" Heere are the holy Oracles as in the side of the Arke, 
suerly kept & puerly taught. Heere are’ all the fountaynes and 
springs of his grace continually replenished and flowing forth. 
Heere is* hee lyfted wp to all Nations, hither hee! inuiteth all mé to 


TEXT OF THE CONFESSION 65 


his supper, his mariage feast; hither ought™ all men of all estates 
and degrees that acknowledg him their Prophet, Priest and 
Xing to repayre, to bee® enrolled emongst his houshold seruants, 
to bee vnder his heauenly conduct and government, to leade their 
lyues in his walled sheepfold, & watered orchard, to haue com- 
munion heere with the Saincts, that they may bee made meet to 
bee partakers of their inheritace in the kingdome of God. 


meuewe sO, ii 12, «Mat. 26, 19. 20. Rom. 9, 4. Ezek./455°35, 2. Cor. 6. 
Domeeeaaeog TO, Ts, tine 3,915. and 42.16, & 62.9, 5.02), Tim} 1) 15. tit. 1, 9. 
Pee resent sal. 40, 4.5.3 Ezek, 47, 1. etc. Joh. 38, 39. .k Isa: 11. 12. 
etmritwertsa.do.22. | isaio5s5, 1. Mat. 6, 33. & 22.°2. “Pro. 9,.4..5.° Joh. 
Pegeiivety t2, 5.15. sa. 2, 2.3. Zach. 14, 16. 17..18..19.. n Esa. Aa; Si 
Pee setOr ane qe 12, Gal. G10. (Col. ty 12.134 Eph.’2, 19. 


1g That as° all his seruants and subiects are called hither, to 
present their bodyes and soules, and to bring the guyfts God hath 
given them; so beeing come, they are heer by himself bestowed in 
their severall order, peculiar place, due use, beeing fitly compact 
and knit together by euery ioynt of help, according to the effect- 
uall work in the measure of euery parte, vnto the edification of yt 
self in loue; wherynto whé hee? ascended vp on high hee gaue 
guifts znto men, [xvi] that hee might fill all these things, and hath 
distributed these guifts, ynto seuerall functions in his Church, hau- 
ing instituted and ratified to’ contynue vnto the worlds end, only 
this publick ordinarie Ministerie of Pastors, Teachers, Elders, Dea- 
cons, Helpers to the instruction, government, and seruice of his 
Church. 


o See the 18. Article before, and Exod. 25. 2. and 35. 5. 1 Cor. 12, 4. 5. 6. 7. 
PomtoeeOm, 12; 4.5. 0, 1. Pet. 4: To, Eph. 4; 16: ‘Colos. 2,5. p Eph. 4, 8: 
eee ioe PROM tee 7.r6.e TO. 1) 1) Cor.12.4. 5. 6.7, 8. II. 14. 18, 16. 
Reames 1.) ne 8Sy ee 523. 0. 17.21, Act. 6, 2. 3. & 14. 23. and 20. 27: 28. 
Pet ke Gd ev. 22cd0.10;. Muat.28:..20: 1. Tim..6; 43, 14. 


20 That this ministerie is exactly’ described, dis¢inguished, 
limited, concerning their office, their calling to their office, ther 
administration of their office, and their maintenance in their office, 
by most perfect and playne ‘lawes in Gods word, which lawes it is 
not lawfull for these Ministers, or for the wholl Church wittinly to 
neglect, transgresse, or violate in anie parte; nor yet to receiue 
anie other lawes brought into the Church by anie person whatso- 
ever. 

r Pro. 8, 8.9. heb. 3. 2.6. the first Epistle to Timothy wholly. Act. 6, 3. 
peOteeIA, 23. & 20; 17. etc. 1. pet. 5, 2.3. 1. Cor. 5,4: 5..10 22.99) ete; and 


Guveuria, 5s Heb. 2.3. and 3. 3. and 12. 25. etc. 2. Tim3,14.15." |Galiir, 89. 
mtimeo, 13.14. Deut. 12, 32. and 4.2. Revel. 22, 18. 19. 


66 THE CONFESSION OF 15906 


21 That' none may vsurp or execute a ministerie but 
such as are rightly called by the Church whereof they stand minis- 
ters; and that such so called ought to gyve all diligence to” fulfill 
ther ministerie, to bee found faithfull and vnblamable in all things. 


Cavum. 16, 5. 40. & 18.)7. 8, Cihton’ 26.18. . Joh. 10. T. 2 and 4.027 eae 
Sea. Act, 6, 3.5.6. & 14.23. “Tit 1,5. vAct. 2) 28.  1.-cor Ay ae 
7, 1-Tim. 1, 18. 19. & 4, 12,.and)5 21 &?O. 11. 12. 13. 14. 2. Pim eee 
past ad and Ass, Teese aengs ade 


22 ‘That this ministerie is alyke given to euery Christian con- 
gregation, with like povvre and commission to haue and enioy the 
same, as God offereth fit men and meanes, the same rules given to 
all for the election and execution therof in all places. 


Mat. 28, 20: I. cor 14,.33. 36. 1. Cor. 12, 4.5.6.9. and’ da. 27 emige eee 
eph. 4, 10.11.1213. “1, cor, 3, 21.22. 23, Mat. 16.037.) sce A iiice eae 


23 That as every christian Congregation* hath povvre and 
commandement to elect and ordeine their ovvn ministerie accord- 
ing to the rules prescribed, and” whilest they shal faithfully execute 
their office, to haue them in superaboundant loue for their vvorke 
sake, to provide for them, to honour them and reuerence them, ac- 
cording to the dignitie of the office they execute. So have they 
also? povvre and commandement when anie such defalt, either in 
their lyfe, Doctrine, or administration breaketh out, as by the rule 
of the word debarreth them from, or depriveth them of their minis- 
terie, by due order to depose them from the ministerie they 
exercised; yea if the case so require, and they remayne obstinate 
and impenitent, orderly to cut them off by excommunication. 

x Act: 6,°3..5..6. & 14. 23.. 2. Cor, 8..19.. Act. 1522) 39. 22.528 suena 
10. and 4, 14, & 5.22. Num. 8,9. 10. yu1. Thes. 5, 12.013. 3. Dime 


Heb. 13, 17.. 1..cor..92 Gal. 6. 6. z1, Tim. 3, 10; and 5. 22/0 homeo 
Phyl:3, 2. 23. 16. a1, 0imi0,3) 5)! Ezek. 44,501,009. eaiat ee ee 


24 That* Christ hath given this povzvre to receiue in or to cut 
off anie member, to the vvholl body together of euery Christian 
Congregation, and not to anie one member aparte, or to moe mem- 
bers sequestred from the vzvholl, or to anie other Congregation to 
doo it for thé: yet that” ech Congregation ought to vse the best 
help they can heer ynto, and the most meet member they haue to 
pronounce the same in their publick assembly. 

a Psal. 122.3... Actit, 47. Rom a@16, 2. Lev. 20, 4. (5. .& 24, 147 ie 


3. Dew.13,:9:.. (Mat. 1807 eaecores aq /2.COr. 2,6, 7215, ib 1, Cope 
22. 23). Act. 18.) 1. (Conds, pa eee ene 


TEXT OF THE CONFESSION 67 


[xvii] 25 That euery member of ech Christian Congregation, 
hovv excellent, great, or learned soeuer, ought to be subiect to 
this censure & iudgment of Christ; Yet ought not the Church 
vvithout great care & due advise to procede against such publick 
persons.’ 


Mele tee rsa TA4t, 5. and\2, 10./1r. 12,.& 149).8.-9.. 1) .Chro,26,,20. Act. 
fae) bes Lim. 5, 19. 20. 21. 


26 That for the *keeping of this Church in holy & orderly 
communion, as Christ “ath placed some speciall men over the 
Church, who by tHeir office are to governe, ouersee, visite, watch, 
&c. So" lykevzise for the better keeping therof in all places, by 
all the members, hee hath giuen aut/oritie & layd duty vpon thé 
all to watch one ouer another. 


iniers see sas O02) O25 Pze.33.2.. Mat. 14,°45+0 (Luks 12, 42:., Act. 20, 
Peete pse ts. 17... pivlar.. 13,34, 37.. Luk. 17,3. - 1. hes. 5; 14. .Gal. 6, 1. 
Mier we2O. llebr. 10, 24,525..c 12. 15. 


27 That vvhilest the Ministers and people thus remayne to- 
gether in this holy order and c/ristian communion, ech one en- 
devoring to do the will of God in their calling, & thus to vvalke 
in the obedience of fait Christ hath promised to bee present with 
them, to blesse & defend them against all adverserie povvre, & 
that the gates of Hell sfall not prevayle against them. 

eam tee ats 25,6200 | ik 12, 35. 30, 37: 35, Mat. 16. 18. Zach. 
mgm ieo-2, 244) PF sale 125.2. & 232) 12:13. etc: 

28 But when & vvéere this holy order & diligent vvatch was 
intermitted, neglected, violated. Antichrist that man of sinne 
corrupted & altered the holy ordinances, offices, & administratids 
of the church broug/t in & erected a strange nez forged minis- 
terie, leitourgie and government & the Nations Aingdoms & in- 
habitants of the earth, were made drunken vvith t/is cup of forni- 
cations & abhominations, & all people enforced to receiue the 
Beasts marke and worship his image & so brought into confusion 
& babilonish bondage. 


Pemorrmi tec. 17.0710, i) hes. 2,3. 4. 9. 10. II. 12. psaliy7qeiisa, 
Peo ati.o7. 26. and So. TO. 11. 12. 6 11. 31. 1. Tim. 4, 1. 2. 9fy joie, 
ioe, 4. 3. 


29 “That the present ministerie reteyned & vsed in Englad of 
Arch. b>. Lo®.? Deanes, Prebendaries, Canons, Peti-Canons, Arch- 


1 An answer to the frequent question what would they do with a sovereign worthy of excom- 
munication. 

2 Lord bishops, the favorite Separatist designation for a diocesan bishop as distinguished from 
a New Testament bishop. 


68 THE CONFESSION OF 1596 


Deacons, Chancellors, Commissaries, Priests, Deacons, Parsons, 
Viccars Curats, Hireling rouing Preachers, Church-zardens, 
Parish-clerkes their Doctors, Proctors, & wholl rable of those 
Courts with all from & vnder them set ouer these Cathedrall & 
ParisZionall Assemblies in this confusion, are a strange & Anti- 
christian ministerie & offices; & are not that ministerie aboue 
named instituted in Christs Testament, or allovved in or ouer his 
Church. 

Revel. 9, 3. etc. G43; 18. 16..17. & 18. 15. 17. compared with Rom ajagmg: 


8. Eph. 4, 11.12: 3: Tim. 3. 15. & 5: 17. Compare this Art: with the iosjaee 
13; 14. 19. 20. 21, 22. 29. 24. 28. Articles aforesaid. 


30 That their *Offices, Entrance, Administration and main- 
tenance, with their ‘names, titles, prvileges, & prerogatiues the 
povvre & rule they vsurp ouer and in these Ecclesiasticall assem- 
blies ouer the wholl ministerie, wholl ministration and affaires 
therof, yea one ouer another by their making Priests, citing, sus- 
pending, silencing, deposing, absoluing, excommunicating, &c. 
Their confounding of Ecclesiasticall and Civile iurisdiction, 
causes & proceedings in ther persons, courts, [xviii] cOmissions, 
Visitations, the rest of lesse rule, taking their ministerie frd and 
exercising it vnder them by their prescription and limitation, 
swearing Canonicall obedience vnto them, administring by their 
devised imposed, stinted popish Leiturgie, &c. are sufficient proofs 
of the former assertion, the perticulars therin beeing duly exam- 
ined by and compared to the Rules of Christs Testament. 

eCompare with Articles 1, 7: 12.13. 14. 19. etc? Rev. 09:3, Gte.7& Teeoeees 
Joh. 10; 1. , Dan. 7; 8.25. and 8. 10. 11/12. 2-Thes.2.-3..4..8.@0) Sew ae 
5.16. fuk. 22, 25. 26. Rev. 14. 11. & 071-364. 8. 25: 15100 yee 
3. with Joh. 3, 29. & with Rev. 2.1. 1. King. 12: 27. Zac. Il. 515.900; eee 


13, 15: 16-17. |" Esa. 29.:13. Mat: 7, 7. 82. Gal 1, 108 etc) 2 eae 
22: 23: Hvek: 6,5: & 13. 9: 10) 11518: ro. ‘Mica 2; 15s” Mal’ tee eee 


31 That these Ecclesiasticall Assemblies, remayning in con- 
fusion and bondage vnder this Antichristian Ministerie, Courts, 
Canons, worship, Ordinances. &c. without freedom or povvre to 
redresse anie enormitie, have not in this confusion and subiection, 
Christ their Prophet, Priest, and King, neither can bee in this 
estate, (whilest wee iudge them by the rules of Gods word) es- 
teemed the true, orderly gathered, or cédstituted churches of 
Christ, wherof the faithfull ought to beecome or stand Members, 
or to haue” anie Sprrituall communion vvith them in their publick 
vvors/ip and Administration. 


TEXT OF THE CONFESSION 69 


Beete a. ts COr.-14, 53. Jir.15, 19. Mal.-1, 4. 6.9890 Ios, 4, 14. etc. 
Regeo, 10.) 2. Pej 2,19. “compare with. Art. 1. 7. II. 12. 23. 14.15. 17. 18. 10. 
eeteeens 29. 30. aioresaid, h Levit. 17, Hos. 4, 15, 1. Con. 10,.15. 19. 20. 2. 
mete iA. 15. 16, Rey. 18, 4. Cant. 1, 6. 7. 

32 That’ by Gods Commandement all that will bee saued, 
must vvith speed come forth of this Antichristian estate,* leaving 
the suppression of it vnto the Magistrate to vvhom zt belongeth.’ 
And that both all such as haue receyued or exercised anie of these 
false Offices or anie pretended function or Ministerie in or to thzs 
false and Antichristian constitution, are vvillingly in Gods feare, to 
giue ouer and leaue those vnlavzfull Offices, and no longer to minis- 
ter in this maner to these Assemblies in this estate And that! none 
also, of what sort or condition soever, doo giue anie part of their 
Goods, Lands, Money, or money vvorth to the maintenance of this 
false Ministerie and vvorship vpon anie Commandement, or vnder 
anie colour vvhatsoeuer. 

Wiens, 4. bcad5. 20, and 52:11. ~Jir. 50,8. & §1..6..45.. Zech. 2, 6. 
eeu Seeriitl 275 0,., 2. Kinos23,.5. etc. KRom..13, 4. Mat.-22, 21. rev. 
ee eeeecn. 15, 2. 4.5.0; fir: 5%, 20.. Psal. 119, 59. 60. 128. Prov. 5, 20. 
Esa. 8, If. 12. and 35. 8. Zach. 14, 21. Prov. 3, 9. 10. compared with Exod. 20. 
Meee tots. 1504s 5. Eek. 10 17.18. 19. 1, Cor. 10. 19; 20. 21.-22. com- 
Domeewiiediey- 63, 10. dc with 2, Cor, 8.3.4.5. 1. Tim. 5, 17. 

33 Zhat beeing come forth of this antic/ristian estate vnto 
the freedom and true profession of Christ, besides the™ instructing 
and [xix] vvell guyding of their ovvn Families, they are” vvillingly 
to ioyne together in c/ristian communion and orderly couenant, 
and by confession of Faith and obedience of Christ, to® vnite them- 
selues into peculiar Congregatids; vvherin, as members of one body 
vvherof Christ is the only head, they are to vvorship and serue 
God according to his vvord, remembring? to keep holy the Lords 
day. 

ieenetoy tp. x00. 13,6. 14. Fro, 31,20. 27. Eph. 6, 4. Deut. 6). 7. 
Peaee ieee ae i Uke 17,37. Psal tro, 3. ) Mat; 6, Esa..44.5. Act. 2, 41,42, 
ee eeenemn ens Q, 30, Acti 2, 41 42. o 1. Cor, 1, 2. and 12. 14.. Rev. F; 
Semneeertep. 12, 18, & 3. 1. 7.14. Eph. 2,19. Col. 2, 19. p Exod: 20, 8. 
eevee tee. NC, 20,°7. I. Cor. 16, 2. 


34 That such as? God hath giuen guiftes to enterpret the 
Scriptures, tryed in the exercise of Prophecie, giving attendance to 
studie and learnzng, may and ought by the appointment of the Con- 
gregation, to teach publickly the vvord, vntill the people bee meet 
for, and God manifest men vvith able guifts and fitnes to such Of- 


1 See ante, p. 46. ‘ 


70 THE CONFESSION OF 1596 


fice or Offices as Christ hath appointed to the publick ministerie of 
his church; but "no Sacraments to bee administred vntill the Pas- 
tors or Teachers bee chosen and ordeyned into their Office. 


qi, Cor, 14, rom: /T2e;Osegis)Cor, 12, 7. \ 1. Pet. 4,7 1O..acceemees 
tr. Thes. 5,20. r Num.916, 10099740. Rom. 12. 7.. “Heb.5,)4.)) Jou tee gees 


35 That* vvheras ther shalbee a people fit, and men fur- 
nished with meet and necessarie guifts, they doo not only still con- 
tinue the exercise of Prophecie aforesayd, but doo also vpon due 
tryall, proceed vnto choyce and ordination of Officiers for the min- 
isterie and serzvise of the Church, according to the rule of Gods 
vvord; And that soe they‘ hold on still to vvalke forward in the 
wayes of Christ for their mutuall edification and comfort, as it 
shall please God to giue knowledge and grace thervnto. And per- 
ticularly, that’ such as bee of the seed,’ or vnder the government 
of anie of the Church, bee euen jn their infancie receiued to Bap- 
tisme, ond made pertagers of the signe of Gods Couenant made 
with the faithfull and their seed throvghout all Generations. And 
that* all of the Church that are of yeeres, and able to examine 
themselues, doo communicate also in the Lords Supper both menY¥ 
and vvomen, and in’ both kindes bread and vvyne in which*® Ele- 
ments, as also in the vvater of baptisme, euen after their are con- 
secrate, there is neyt#er transubstantiation into, nor Consubstan- 
tiation with the bodye and bloode of /esus Christ; vvhome °the 
ffeauens must conteyne; vntill the tyme [xx] that al things bee re- 
stored. ‘But they are in the ordinance of God signes and seales of 
Gods euerlasting couenant, representing and offring to all the re- 
ceiuers, but exhibiting only to the true beleevers the Lord Iesus 
Christ and all his benefits vnto righteousnes, sanctification and 
eternall lyfe, through faith in his name to the glorie and prayse of 
God. 


s Lev..8. Act.6, 3.15: 6..& 14. 21. 22. 23: Tit 1) (6. ete. sri Coreen 
14. 15. 1: Vim. 9. t) Col. 2, 5..6. 7. 2. Thes.2. 15.) Judiagete eeeeee 
20. v Act. 2, 38,390. I. Cor..7,.14. Rom. 11,-16, Gen. 17) 7120070 
10, 2. Psal. 22, 30.. Exod>12,.48..49. Act. 16, 15. 93. «1. Cor, 2,010; eae 
13, 14. 15. 16. Gal. 3, 29: 9x Mat..26, 26.27. 1. Cor. 17) 28 2andst0;e ee 
17. act. 2,42, & 20,17..8. by Galio3, 28. Act. 2. 42.) with ii. teens 
13. ‘Zz Mat. 26, 26. 27. “Ir Cor’10,+374. 10. & I. 23, (240o8) soo ee ee 
a I. Cor. 10, 16.'17. & 11629. 240 .25:-20. etc.  Mat.20, 920.027) ana ee 
Joh. 12, 8... b Act.-3, 21, 809.4502 ec, Gen. 17, Il. roms4; 11.” Exod cee 
with Heb. °13; °20.° dL. Corset) 20 27. 28, 29. & 10, 304554" Roma acne 
Act.*15..9). Rom. 5)6¢ Gojoe eenapr: 


1 7, e,, Children of those who are members of the local church, thus in covenant relation with 
God. 


TEXT OF THE CONFESSION 71 


36 That thus® beeing righly gathered, established, and still 
proceeding in christian communion & obedience of the Gospell of 
Christ, none is to seperate for falts and corruptions which may and 
so long as the Church consisteth of mortall men, will fall out & 
arise emong them, even in a true constituted Church, but by duef 
order to seeke redresse therof. 

eee at), etc, 2. Chiro. 15, 9. 17. and 90, 18. Ig. rey. 2, and 3. I. Cor. 
Werome rin 2, faz: 3. 4. 5..0. and 3.15. 16. heb. 10. 25.’ ind [Jude] 19. f 2. Cor. 
Beret omerrev. 2.00013.) 1.. Lhes..5, 14.0 °2. ‘Thess. 3,6. 14. Mats18177 1: Cor. 
Reise e ACt, 15,1. °2, 

37. That® such as yet see not the truth, may heare the publik 
doctrine and prayers of the church, and with al mee&nes are to bee 
sought by all meanes: Yet none who are growne in yeeres to 
bee received into their communion as members, but such as doo 
make confession of their faith, publickly desiring to bee receiued as 
members, and promising to walke in the obedience of Christ. 
Neither anie' Infants, but such as are the seed of the faithfull by 
one of the parents, or ynder their education and gouernment. And 
further not anie* from one Congregation to bee receiued members 
in another, without bringing certificate’ of their former es/ate and 
present purpose. 

Peer Aten. 257 1b salets.a49. ) 10M. 15,9. 10; 1. lim. 2, 4. . 2. Tim: 2, 
pee lor 0 i4. 15. 105. Ezra, 3. Exod: 12,43. Lev. 22.25. Exod, 34. 
omeiveie se esa, A406. Actr 10, 10. 1 Exod. 20, 5.6. 1. Cor. 7,14. Gen. 17, 
Per 12 dowag. Act, 16,15, 33: kAct.'9,°26. 27. rom. 16, I. ‘2. 
PeleOre fe23s) GOlL4s IO 

38 That though Congregations bee thus distinct and severall 
bodyes, every one as a compact Citie in it self, yet are they all to 
walke by one and the same rule, & by all meanes convenient to 
haue the counsell and help one of another in all needfull affayres 
of the Church, as members of one body in the common Faith, vnder 
Christ their head. 


Look Articles 1. 22. 23. Psal. 122 3. Cant. 8. 8.9. I. cor. 4, 17. and 16. 1. 


39 ©That it is the Office and duty of Princes and Magestrates, 
‘who by the ordinance of God are supreme Governers vnder him 
over all persons and causes within their Realmes and Dominions, 
to™ suppress and root out by their authoritie all false ministeries, 
voluntarie Relligions and counterfeyt worship of God, to abolish 
and destroy the Idoll Temples, Images, Altares, Vestments, and 
all other monuments of /dolatrie and superstition and to take and 
convert to their own civile vses not only the benefit of all such 


72 THE CONFESSION OF 15c¢6 


idolitrous buyldings & monuments, but also the Revenues, De- 
meanes, Lordships, Possessions, Gleabes and maintenance of anie 
false ministeries and vnlawfull Ecclesiasticall functions whatsoever 
within their Dominions. [xxi] And on the other hand” to estab- 
lish & mayntein by their lawes every part of Gods word his pure 
Relligion and true ministerie to cherish and protect all such as are 
carefull to worship God according to his word, and to leade a 
godly lyfe in all peace and loyalltie; yea to enforce al their Sub- 
iects whether Ecclesiasticall or civile, to do their dutyes to God 
and men, protecting & mainteyning the good, punishing and re- 
streyning the evill according as God hath commanded, vvhose 
Lieuetenants they are Zeer on earth. 

1 Rom. 13,3. 4. 1. Pet. 2. 3, 14. ‘2. Chro. To, 4: ete. and..26. and? 44aaere 
Judg. 17,5. 6; Math.-2¢. 27. Tit: 3, 1. m2. King. 23,55, tes | Peale eee 
12, 2, 3. with 17. I4. 18.19. 20. 2 King. 10. 26: 27. 28.) 2. (ites ee 
16,12. and .25. 2.3. 4.5. “Act. 19, 27.. Rey. 17.16.) n, Deut 17.745) ee 


Josua. 1,7. 8. 2 Chro. 17, 4./7. 89. & I9. 4. etc. & 20. & 30.) Dan agen 
Psal. 2, 10. 11,12: & 72. 1. ete.” Esq. 40,23. Rev oid sae 


40 That therfore the® protection & commandement of the 
Princes and Magistrats maketh it much more peaceable, though? 
no whit at all more lavzvfull, to vvalke in the vvayes and ordinances 
of Iesus Christ vvhich hee hath commanded his church to keep 
vvithout spot and vnrebukeable vntill Zis appeering in the end of 
the vvorld. ‘%And that in this behalf the brethren thus mynded 
and proceeding as is beforesaid, doo both contynually supplicate 
to God, and as they may, to their Princes and Gouernours that thus 
and vnder them they may leade a quiet and peaceable lyfe in all 
godlynes and honestie. 

o Pro. 16, 15. zr. 5. aud 6, Act. 9, 31. 1 Tim: 2, 2 Danses 
Rev. 21, 24. pAct. 4, 18. 19. and 5. 28: 29. Dan6).7;°8. 9. 102232) ae eee 


12. 13.. Mat. 28, 20, 4. tim. 5, 21. and 6. 13. 14, -q\Psaly72. 1: eten reese 
2, 2 chro. 15, tecaiaee dy. 14. and. 5, 


41 That if God encline the Magistrates earts to the allog- 
vance & protection of them therin they accompt it a happie 
blessing of God who granteth such nourcing Fathers and nourc- 
ing Mothers to his Church, & be carefull to walke vvorthie so 
great a mercy of God in all thankfulnes and obedience. 

Psal, 126, 1. etc. Esa. 49,13. and 6016. Psal. 72,1. etc.” Rome seen 
‘Dingess 

42 That if God vvithold the Magistrates allovvance and 
furtherace heerin, they’ yet proceed together in christian coue- 


TEXT OF THE CONFESSION 7S 


nant & communion thus to vvalke in the obedience of Christ evé 
through the middest of all tryalls and aflictions, not accompting 
their goods, Lands VVyves, Children, Fathers, Mothers, brethren, 
Sisters, no nor their ovvn lyues dear vnto thé, so as they may 
finish their course with ioy, remembring alvvayes that wee ‘ought 
to obey God rather thé ma, & grounding vpon the commande- 
ment, commission and promsse of our Saviour Christ, vvho as hee 
hath all povvre in heaué & in earth, so hath also promised if they 
keep his commandements vvhich hee hath giué without limitatid 
of tyme, place, Magistrates allovvance or disallowance, to bee 
with them vnto tbe end of the world and vvhen they haue finished 
their course and kept the fait#, to giue them te crovyn of right- 
eousnes vvhich is layd vp for all them that loue his appeering. 
Pacis AO. 41-42. atid 42°19. and-5. 28.29. '41. and 16. 20. etc. and 14. 6. 7. 
ema iaee tt hes. 3, 3. -Phile1.327. 28,29. Dan. 3,16. 17.18. and 6. 7. 
ieee 2Ase uk. 1d. 20,27, & 2%n12. 13, 14. 2..tim. 2, I2, and 3, 12. - heb 
Pe omercrmia tt et. 4, Key. 2, 10. 25.26. and. 6. 9. and 12. 11 "Act. 8, 29. and 


Deere at, 2,910.00. 20. ele 1im:'6)/13.514. 15.16. “2) Tim. 4)'7. 8. - Rev. 
Serorandiit. 12. 13.and 22. 16. 17.-18.°19. 20. 


43 That they doo also gvvillingly and orderly pay and per- 
forme all maner of lavvfull and accustomed dutyes vnto all men, 
submitting [xxii] in the Lord themselues, their bodyes, Landes, 
Goods and lyves to the J/agistrates pleasure. And that euery 
vuay they acknovyledge, reverence and obey them according to 
godlynes, not because of vvrath only but also for conscience sake. 

Peewee ee Oe een. 2221... 2.,cbr0 27,0 Hz 7.26, Tit. 3, I. 1. 
Pey. 2, 13 etc. 

44 And thus doo vvee the Subiects of God and hir Ma 
falsely called Brovvnists labour to giue vnto God that vvhich 1s 
Gods, & vnto Cesar that vvhich is Ceesars, endevoring our selues 
to haue alvvayes a cleere conscience tovvards God and tovvards 
men: And if anie tafe this to be heresie, then doo vvee vvith the 
YApostle freely confesse that after the vvay vvhic# they call 
heresie vve vvorship Cod the Father of our Lord /esus Christ ; 
beleeving all things that are vvritten in the Lazvz, and in the 
Prophets & Apostostles: And vvhatsoeuer is according to this 
vvord of truth published by this State or holden by anie reformed 
churches abrode in the vvorld. 


vAct. 24, 14. 


45 Finally, vvheras vvee are much slandered, as if vve 
denyed or misliked tat forme of prayer commonly called the 
6 


74 THE CONFESSION OF 1596 


Lords Prayer vvee thought it needfull heere also concerning it to 
make knovvn that vvee beleeue and acknovzledg it to bee a most 
absolute & most excellent forme of prayer sush [such] as no men 
or Angells can set downe the like And that it was taught & ap- 
pointed by our Lord Iesus Cf/rist, not that vvee should bee tyed 
to the vse of those very words, but shat vvee should according to 
that rule make all our requests & ¢hanksgyuing vnto God, foras- 
much as if is a perfect forme and patterne conteyning in it playne 
& sufficient directions of prayer for all occasions and necessities 
that haue been, are, or shalbee to the church of God, or anie 
member therof to the end of the world. 

Mat. 6, g. etc. Luk. 11, 2. etc. compared with Mat. 14, 30. and 26. 39. 42. 


Act. 1.924. 25:.and 4.24. etc. Rom. 8, 26. 27. Rev. 8, 3,94. {EB plmgoetemee 
Phyl. 4,6." (Heb..11,:184,10.20, 21. «J udewers.. 24.25. 


Now vnto him that ts ahle [able| to keep vs that wee fall not, & to 
present us faltlesse before the presence of his glorie with joy ; that ts to 
God only wise our Sauiour, bee glory, & Mayestie & dominion, & 
powre both now & for ever, Amen. 


IV 


meer OINisS OF “DIFFERENCE. BETWEEN CON- 
free TlONALISM “AND’ “THE CHURCH’ OF 
ENGLAND, 1603 


EDITIONS AND REPRINTS 

I. In Johnson and Ainsworth’s Apologie or Defence of such Trve Christians 
as are commonly (but vniustly) called Brovvnists : etc., 1604, pp. 36-38.! 

II. With the Confession of 1596-08 in Confessio Fidei Anglorum quorundam 
in Inferiort Germania exulantium. Vnd cum annotatione brevi precipuarum 
rerum in quibus differimus ab Ecclesia Anglia, etc. 1607.? 

III. Also with the Confession of 1596-98 in Zhe Confession of faith of cer- 
tayn English people, living in exile, in the Low Countreyes. Together with a brief 
note of the special heads of those things wherin we differ fro the Church of Eng- 
lad, etc. 1607. 

IV. Dutch version of the Apologie, 1614,4 (probably). 

V. Dutch version of the Afologie, 1670.° 

VI. Dexter, Congregationalism, as seen in its Literature, pp. 307, 308. 
LITERATURE 

Our chief source of information regarding these petitions and the circumstances 
under which they were presented is Johnson and Ainsworth’s Afologie, already cited; 
Hanbury, AZemorzals, 1: 112-117, with extracts from the enlarged form of the Pozmts 
of Difference ; Punchard, Hestory of Congregationalism, III: 253-265, with an ab- 
stract of the Pozzts and extracts from the petitions; Dexter, Congregationalism as 
seen, pp. 306-310. 


HEN death removed, in 1603, the great queen under whose 

reign the London-Amsterdam church had been driven into 

exile, the throne was taken by James I.,—a man whose affiliations 
and promises had excited the hopes of all parties, from the Catho- 
lics to the Puritans, but who was to disappoint religious men of 
every shade of opinion except the supporters of the royal preroga- 
tive and the Church in the form established by Elizabeth. At 
first, however, the king’s real sentiments were unknown, and it 
was with some confidence of a favorable hearing that about 750 


ministers of the Establishment, of Puritan sympathies, laid before 


1 See azze, p. 41, VI. 2 Ante, p. 41, VII. 3 Ante, p. 41, VII. 
4 Ante, p. 41, IX. 5 Ante, p. 41, X. 


70 THE POINTS OF DIFFERENCE, 1603 


him the famous Millenary Petition,’ praying for a reform of the 
English Church in the direction of a more thorough-going Protest- 
antism. These hopes of the Puritans were shared by the little 
Separatist body at Amsterdam, and in like manner they prepared 
a petition and sent it to London with a copy of their perfected 
creed of 1598, to convince the new king at once of their loyalty 
and the correctness of their views. ‘There seems little doubt that 
Johnson and Ainsworth were its bearers.” Not hearing from this 
petition, the representatives of the church sent to the king a sec- 
ond appeal, containing the brief summary of the fourteen points of 
difference between the petitioners and the Church of England, 
which is the document here republished. Whether the king, or 
his ministers, saw fit to make any inquiries or not, we do not know; 
but the Separatists now prepared a third petition, recapitulating 
the points already presented and supporting them elaborately by 
arguments and citations from the Scriptures. This document 
seems to have failed of a hearing altogether, and after a consider- 
able waiting, a man of position or influence at court was persuaded 
to present in their behalf a brief little prayer* that the Amsterdam 
Separatists might be permitted to live in their native land on the 
same terms as the French and Dutch churches then enjoyed on 
English soil, and that their opponents might be required to answer 
their points and arguments, and the whole question be fairly laid 
before the king. The result was unsatisfactory enough. The 
Separatists received none of the things for which they sued. And 
by the close of January, 1604, the Hampton Court Conference must 
have made it plain to all men that no essential reforms of any sort 
were to be looked for from the new English ruler. 

Doubtless the Convocation of the province of Canterbury, which 
considered and adopted 161 canons during May, June, and July, 
1603, had little if any knowledge of the petitions which the obscure 


brethren from Amsterdam were pressing upon the attention of the 





1 The Petition may be found in full in Fuller, Church History of Britain, ed. London, 
1842, III: 193-196; or in Perry, History of the English Church (Student’s Series), London, 1881, 
PP. 372, 373 (from Fuller). 

2 Dexter, Cong. as seen, p. 306. All these Separatist petitions are in the Afologie. 

3 Johnson and Ainsworth, AZologze, p. 82; see also, Punchard, III: 264. 


THE PETITIONS TO KING JAMES Av 


king.’ But as one reads the rules for church government which 
that body prepared, under royal license, and which the king’s let- 
ters-patent soon approved,’ one sees clearly that Johnson and Ains- 
worth had nothing to hope from men so diametrically opposed to 
the theories of the church which the Separatists drew from the 
New Testament. Those canons declared that to deny the true 
and apostolic character of the Church of England, as then estab- 
lished; to hold that the forms of prayer or the rites of that Church 
were in any way repugnant to Scripture, or superstitious; to ques- 
tion the Christian character of such offices as archbishoprics, 
bishoprics, or deaneries; to doubt the lawfulness of the ordination 
and call of bishops, priests, and deacons, when tested by the Word 
of God; to separate from the Church of England, or to assert that 
any other bodies of English subjects than those assembling accord- 
ing to the forms established by law can constitute a true church; 
to do or declare any one of these things is zfso facto to incur the 
penalty of excommunication, in such severity that naught but a 
public recantation and the satisfaction of the archbishop as to the 
genuineness of his repentance can restore the offender to the 
Church. The Separatists might well feel that if Elizabeth had 
chastised them with whips, James bade fair to chastise them with 
scorpions. The best that they could hope to do was to remain be- 


yond his reach in their Amsterdam exile. 


THE POINTS OF DIFFERENCE. 


“1. That Christ the Lord hath by his last Testament given to 
his Church, and set therein, sufficient ordinary Offices, with the 
maner of calling or Entrance, Works, and Maintenance, for the 
administration of his holy things, and for the sufficient ordinary 
instruction guydance and service of his Church, to the end of the 
world.® 


1 Perry, History of the English Church, pp. 367, 368. Neal, History of the Puritans, I: 
27, 31-36, gives an epitome of the canons which concern dissent. See also Punchard, 7st. of Cong., 
III: 273, 274. 

2 James ordered that these canons should be read in every church at least once a year. 

3 This was a point of difference from the old ecclesiasticism of the early Elizabethan divines 
rather than from the rising school of high churchmen which had its beginnings about the time of 
the publication of the Trve Description. As Perry has pointed out, the early Elizabethan church 
theories were Erastian, —that the sovereign preferred Episcopacy was the real warrant for its exist- 
ence. Even Whitgift, the archbishop who was instrumental in the deaths of Barrowe and Green- 


THE POINTS OF DIFFERENCE, 1603 


al 
ie) 


2. That every particular Church hath like and full interest 
and power to enioy and practise all the ordinances of Christ given 
by him to his Church to be observed therein perpetually. 

3. That every true visible Church,’ is a company of people 
called and separated from the world by the word of God, and 
joyned together by voluntarie profession of the faith of Christ, in 
the fellowship of the Gospell. And that therfore no knowne Athe- 
ist, vnbelever, Heretique, or wicked liver, be received or reteined a 
member in the Church of Christ, which is his body; God having in 
all ages appointed and made a separation of his people from the 
world, before the Law, vnder the Law, and now in the tyme of the 
Gospell. 

4. That discreet, faithfull, and able men (though not yet in 
office of Ministerie) may be appointed to preach the gospell and 
whole truth of God, that men being first brought to knowledge, 
and converted to the Lord, may then be ioyned togeather in holy 
communion with Christ our head and one with another. 

5. That being thus ioyned, every Church hath power in Christ 
to chuse and take vnto themselves meet and sufficient persons, 
into the Offices and functions of Pastors, Teachers, Elders, Dea- 





wood, used language which at least implied that there might be other systems of church-govern- 
ment more warranted by Scripture example than Episcopacy. But with Bancroft’s sermon at 
Paul’s Cross, in 1589, the claim was set up (rather indistinctly and indirectly, it must be said) that 
Episcopacy is of divine warrant and apostolic example. This view was further developed by 
Thomas Bilson, bishop of Worcester 1596-7, and of Winchester from 1597 to his death in 1616, in 
his Perpetval Governement of Christes Church, 1593, wherein not only is Episcopacy asserted to 
be the only Scriptural method of church government, but apostolic succession is affirmed to be 
essential to the very existence of the church. Even the moderate Richard Hooker, in his Acclesiz- 
asticall Politie, 1594, while denying that Episcopacy is necessary to the existence of the church, or 
under all circumstances to be required, asserted it to be the form of government most agreeable to 
Scripture. Bancroft and Bilson’s views gained constantly over the Erastian theories, and with 
Bancroft’s appointment as archbishop, in 1604, mounted the throne of Canterbury. Yet the diverg- 
ence of this article even from their view is considerable, for though the high churchmen would find 
in Episcopacy the only form of polity warranted by the Word of God, they hardly claimed that all 
the minutiz of offices and rites were prescribed in the New Testament. See Perry, History of the 
Church of England, (Student’s Series,) 342-349. Bancroft’s sermon may be found in Hicks, Bzd- 
liotheca Script. Eccles. Angl., London, 1709, pp. 247-315 (where the old style date of 1588 is assigned 
to it). His views are set forth with more elaboration in his Svrvay of the Pretended Holy Disci- 
pline, 1593. Anew edition of Bilson’s Perfetval Governement was brought out by Robert Eden, 
at Oxford, 1842. 

1 It may not be amiss to add, as an illustration of the conception of the form of a church here 
set forth, the definition given by Henry Jacob, Johnson’s opponent in the extreme Separatism of 
the latter, but a Congregationalist of great desert, the friend of Robinson, who founded, in 1616, in 
Southwark, London, the first Congregational church to maintain a continuous existence on English 
soil. It is in his Divine Beginning and Institution of Christs True Visible or Ministerial 
Church, Leyden, 1610, p. [18]: ‘tA true Visible & Ministeriall Church of Christ is a nomber of 
faithfull people joyned by their willing consent in a spirituall outward society or body politike, or- 
dinarily comming togeather into one place, instituted by Christ in his New Testament, & having 
the power to exercise Ecclesiasticall government and all Gods other spirituall ordinances (the meanes. 
of salvation) in & for it selfe immediatly from Christ.” 


TEXT OF THE ‘POINTS OF DIFFERENCE 79 


cons and Helpers, as those which Christ hath appointed in his 
Testament, for the feeding, governing, serving, and building vp of 
his Church. And that no Antichristia Hierarchie or Ministerie, of 
Popes, Arch-bishops, Lord-bishops, Suffraganes, Deanes, Arch-dea- 
cons, Chauncellors, Parsons, Vicars, Priests, Dumb-ministers, nor 
any such like be set over the Spouse and Church of Christ, nor re- 
teined therein. 

6. That the Ministers aforesaid being lawfully called by the 
Church where they are to administer, ought to continew in their 
functions according to Gods ordinance, and carefully to feed the 
flock of Christ committed vnto them, being not inioyned or suf- 
fered to beare Civill offices withall, neither burthened with the 
execution of Civill affaires, as the celebration of marriage, burying 
the dead &c. which things belong aswell to those without as within 
tie Church,’ 

Fee ebet the, duc- maintenance of the Officers: aforesaid, 
should be of the free and voluntarie contribution of the Church, 
that according to Christs ordinance, they which preach the Gospell 
may live of the Gospell: and not by Popish Lordships and Livings, 
or Iewish Tithes and Offerings. And that therefore the Lands 
and other like revenewés of the Prelats and Clergie yet remayning 
(being still also baits to allure the Iesuites and Seminaries’ into 
the Land, and incitements vnto them to plott and prosecute their 
woonted evill courses, in hope to enioy them in tyme to come) may 
now by your Highnes be taken away, and converted to better vse, 
as those of the Abbeyes and Nunneries have been heertofore by 
your Maiestyes worthie predecessors, to the honor of God and 
great good of the Realme. 

8. That all particular Churches ought to be so constituted, 
as having their owne peculiar Officers, the whole body of every 
Church may meet togeather in one place, and iointly performe 
their duties to God and one towards another. And that the cen- 
sures of admonition and excommunication be in due maner exe- 
cuted, for sinne, convicted, and obstinatly stood in. This power 





1 This article, the last clauses of which are so foreign to modern Congregational sentiment, 
represents the view also of the founders of New England regarding marriages and funerals. As far 
as known, the first instance of prayer at a New England funeral was at Roxbury in 1685 (Palfrey, 
fist. N. E., I11: 495). The next year, 1686, saw the first marriage by a minister in Mass. (Proc. 
Mass. Hist. Soc., 1858-60, p. 283). Connecticut permitted ministers to join in marriage by a law of 
Oct. 1694 (Conn. Records, IV: 136). 

27. ¢., the priests from the Seminary which Cardinal William Allen established in 1568 at 
Douai in the then Spanish Netherlands. These men, trained for work in England, from 1577 on- 
ward were looked upon as the most dangerous foes of English Protestantism, 


80 THE POINTS OF DIFFERENCE, 1603 


also to be in the body of the Church wherof the partyes so offend- 
ing and persisting are members. 

9. That the Church be not governed by Popish Canons, 
Courts, Classes, Customes, or any humane inventions, but by the 
lawes and rules which Christ hath appointed in his Testament. 
That no Apocrypha writings, but only the Canonicall scriptures 
be vsed in the Church. And that the Lord be worshipped and 
called vpon in spirit and truth, according to that forme of praier 
given by the Lord Iesus, Math. 6. and after the Leitourgie of his 
owne Testament, not by any other framed or imposed by men, 
much lesse by one traslated from the Popish leitourgie, as the 
Book of common praier &c. 

1o. That the Sacraments, being seales of Gods covenant, 
ought to be administred only to the faithfull, and Baptisme to 
their seed or those vnder their governement. And that according 
to the simplicitie of the Gospell, without any Popish or other 
abuses, in either Sacrament. 

11. -That the Church be not yrged to the observationeos 
dayes and tymes, Iewish or Popish, save only to sanctify the Lords 
day: Neyther be laden in things indifferent, with rites and cere- 
monies, whatsoever invented by men; but that Christian libertie 
may be reteined: And what God hath left free, none to make 
bound. 

12. That all monuments of Idolatry in garments or any 
other things, all Temples, Altars, Chappels, and other place, dedi- 
cated heertofore by the Heathens or Antichristians to their false 
worship, ought by lawfull aucthoritie to be rased and abolished, 
not suffered to remayne, for nourishing superstition, much lesse 
imploied to the true worship of God. 

13. That Popish degrees in Theologie, inforcement to 
single life in Colledges, abuse of the study of prophane heathen 
Writers, with other like corruptions in Schooles and Academies, 
should be remooved and redressed, that so they may be the wel- 
springs and nurseries of true learning and godlinesse. 

14. Finally that all Churches and people (without excep- 
tion) are bound in Religion only to receave aud submit vnto that 
constitution, Ministerie, Worship, and order, which Christ as Lord 
and King hath appointed vnto his Church: and not to any other 
devised by Man whatsoever. 


\W 


iitbeon VEN ARTICLES OF 1617 ANDSEHE MAY.- 
FLOWER COMPACT OF 1620 


A. THE SEVEN ARTICLES, 1617 


This important declaration long remained forgotten among the documents of the 
State Paper Office at Westminster. It was at last brought to light by the historian, 
George Bancroft, and communicated by him to 

I. Collections of the New York Historical Society, Second Series, New York, 
1857; III. Pt. I. pp. 301, 302. It was reprinted by 

II. Punchard, Westory of Congregationalism, Boston, 1867. III: 454, 455; 

III. Waddington, Congregational History, 1567-1700, London, 1874, 206, 207 ; 

IV. Doyle, Zhe English in America, The Puritan Colonies, London, 1887, I: 
49, 50; and 

V. Goodwin, Zhe Pilgrim Republic, Boston, 1888, p. 41. 

Beside some brief comments in the works of Doyle, Goodwin, and Punchard, and 
an important letter from Bancroft in communicating the document to the New York 
Society (Collections, as cited, 295-99), a few facts will be found in Bradford’s //7s- 
tory of Plymouth Plantation, pp. 30, 31 (ed. Boston, 1856), and a somewhat ex- 
tended discussion in Bacon’s Genesis of the New England Churches, New York, 
1874, pp. 264-8. 


B. THE BRIEF NOTES OF EXPLANATION, 1618 


These supplementary definitions are preserved for us by Bradford, Hist. Plym. 
Plantation, pp. 34, 35. They were copied from Bradford's manuscript by Nathaniel 
- Morton into the records of the Plymouth Church, and may be found in Hazard, /is- 
torical Collections, Philadelphia, 1792, 1794, I: 364,365; and in Young, C/ronz- 
cles of the Pilgrim Fathers, pp. 64, 65, from that source. They are discussed by 
Bacon, Genesis of the V. E. Chs., pp. 267-269, and are given by Waddington. 

C. THE MAYFLOWER COMPACT, 1620 

Texts and Reprints. — Since the original manuscript is not known to be extant, 
we are dependent upon copies for our knowledge of this important document. Of 
these there are three which may claim about equal rank as original sources and are in 
substantial harmony. 

I. InG. Mourt’s (¢. e. George Morton’s') 4 Relation or Lournall of the begin- 
ning and proceedings of the English Plantation settled at Plimoth, etc., London, 
1622, p. 3. Reprinted (among others) by Young, Chronicles of the Pilgrim 
Fathers, Boston, 1841-4, p. 121; Geo. B. Cheever in partial fac-simile, New York, 
1848, pp. 30, 31: Dr. Dexter, with introduction and notes, and in fac-simile, Boston, 
1865, pages 6, 7. 


1 Dexter’s reprint, introduction, xviii-xxxi. This portion of the RedatZon was probably by 


Bradford. ( St ) 


82 THE MAYFLOWER CHURCH 


II. InGov. Bradford’s History of Plymouth Plantation, long in manuscript. 
The compact was printed from this manuscript by Thomas Prince, 4 Chronological 
flistory of New England, etc., Boston, 1736, 1: 84, 85. Gov. Hutchinson again 
printed it, either from the manuscript or from Prince, in The History of the Province 
of Mass. Bay, Boston, 1767, Il. Appendix 455, 456.1 It may now be found also 
in the careful edition of Bradford’s whole work issued by the Mass. Hist. Society, 
flistory of Plymouth Plantation, etc., Boston, 1856, pp. 89, go. 

III. In Nathaniel Morton’s (son of George) Mew England's Memoriall, etc., 
Cambridge, N. E., 1669, p. 15. (Fifth? edition, John Davis, Boston, 1826, pp. 37, 38; 
Sixth, Boston, 1855, pp. 24-26). It was reprinted from Morton by Neal, History 
of New England, etc., London, 1720, I: 81, 82;3 and by Hazard, A7storical Col- 
lections, etc., Philadelphia, 1792, 1794, I: 119. Morton, as keeper of the public 
records of the Colony from 1645 to 1685, may well have had access to the original 
document. He alone gives the list of signatures. 

Reprints of one or other of these forms, in addition to those already pointed out, 
are numerous. The following may perhaps be cited : 

. I. J. Belknap, American Biography, Boston, 1794-8, II : Igo. 

2. Baylies, Historical Memoir of the Colony of New Plymouth, Drake’s ed. 
Boston, 1866, p. 28. 

3. Hanbury, AZemorials, 1: 398. 


4. Elliott, Vew Lugland History, New York, 1857, I: 102. 

5. Uhden, Vew England Theocracy, Conant’s translation, Boston, 1858, p. 57. 

6. Palfrey, Hzstory of New England, Boston, 1859, I: 165. 

7. Punchard, History of Congregationalism, II1: 411. 

8. Waddington, Congregational History, 1567-1700, p. 222. 

g. Bancroft, Westory of the United States, ed. Boston, 1876, 1: 243. 

10. Windsor, Varrative and Critical History of America, Boston, 1884, III: 
269. 


II. Goodwin, The Pilgrim Republic, Boston, 1888, p. 63. 
12. Thwaites, Ze Colonies, 1492-1750, New York, 1891, p. 118. 
13. Fisher, Zhe Colonial Era, New York, 1892, p. 93. 


HE documents thus far considered have been the product of 
lt the London-Amsterdam church ; the one now presented had 
for its source the Scrooby-Leyden-Plymouth company. Obscure 
as is the origin of the London church, the beginnings of the Scrooby 
congregation are yet more involved in darkness. But it seems cer- 
tain that a Separatist congregation was gathered by the afterwards 
celebrated John Smyth, probably about 1602, at Gainsborough, a 
town some forty miles southeast of York and nearly half way be- 
tween York and Boston. This church attracted members from the 


1 Carelessly—three misreadings. 
2 Possibly sixth, see Dexter, Cong. as seen, Bibl. 1986 
3 With one transposition in the dating clause. 


ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH 83 


adjacent parts of Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, and Yorkshire.’ 
Hither came, not far from 1604, John Robinson, from his studies at 
Cambridge and several years of labor near Norwich, where his Con- 
gregational sentiments had attracted the unfavorable notice of his 
ecclesiastical superiors. But Gainsborough was distant from the 
residences of a number of the congregation, and, being a town of 
some size, the church was likely to bring down governmental cen- 
sure, and, therefore, in 1605 or more probably 1606, a portion of the 
Gainsborough church organized separately and met statedly at the 
house of William Brewster, the postmaster at Scrooby, a station 
on the main road between London and Berwick, about ten miles 
from Gainsborough. In 1606 also the congregation remaining at 
Gainsborough removed, together with Smyth, to Amsterdam, where 
they united with and turmoiled the London-Amsterdam church for 
atime. Probably the Scrooby company now further perfected its 
organization, if it had not already done so, by the choice as officers 
of Richard Clyfton and John Robinson.’ But this church, too, 
soon found England a hard place in which to worship God after 
the Congregational fashion, and through much difficulty they, 
therefore, made their way to Amsterdam in 1607 and 1608. Here 
the major part of the church soon came to look with concern on 
the havoc which the well-meaning but unstable Smyth had already 
wrought in the always contentious London-Amsterdam church ; 
and so, fearing lest their own brotherhood be drawn into like con- 
fusion, they emigrated in 1609 to Leyden. Clyfton preferring to 


1 It seems not impossible that Bradford has given us the form, as well as the substance, of the 
covenant of this church. He tells us (Hzst. Plym. Plant., 9.) ‘‘ They shooke of this yoake of anti- 
christian bondage, and as y® Lords free people, joyned them selves (by a covenant of the Lord) 
into a church estate, in ye felowship of y® gospell, to walke in all his wayes, made known, or 
to be made known unto them, according to thetr best endeaours, whatsoever it should cost 
them, the Lord assisting them.’ [The italics are mine.] It is true that Bradford wrote at least 
a quarter of a century after the events he here describes, and therefore absolute identity is hardly to 
be affirmed. But the tone and form of this sentence-long covenant is very like that which we shall 
see used at Salem in 1629 and Boston-Charlestown in 1630, and some others which will be cited in 
connection with them. 

2 Bacon, Genesis of the N. E. Chs., pp. 207, 230, 231, says that Clyfton was pastor and Robin- 
son teacher at Scrooby. The greater age and long pastoral experience of Clyfton would make his 
choice as pastor of the new church probable; but it seems to me that the records do not warrant us 
in asserting positively that he held this office rather than that of teacher. Bradford is obscure. See 
his Hist. Plym. Plant., pp. 10, 16, 17. 


84 THE MAYFLOWER CHURCH 


remain at Amsterdam, Robinson’ was now chosen to the pastorate, 
if not already in that office, and probably for want of a suitable 
candidate in the little company, the teachership was left vacant.’ 
The post of elder was now worthily filled’ by the selection of Wil- 
liam Brewster.*/ Here at Leyden all the company were to remain 





1 John Robinson, the most celebrated member of the Leyden company, was born in 1575 or ’76, 
probably in the neighborhood of Gainsborough, where we have seen Smyth gathering a Separatist 
church at a later period. In 1592 he entered Corpus Christi College in the great Puritan univer- 
sity of Cambridge, and here rose in 1598-9 to the dignity of Fellow. About 1600, it would appear, 
he went to the vicinity of Norwich, or to that city itself, and entered on religious work, probably as a 
curate. But here his Separatist views became so pronounced that, about 1604, he appears to have 
incurred censure from his bishop and to have left Norwich for the region of Gainsborough, where we 
have seen him joining himself to the Separatist church. His election as pastor of the Scrooby-Ley- 
den body has already been noticed. At Leyden he made his home to the end of his days. Here, 
with others, he purchased a considerable property, more for the use of the church than his own 
comfort ; and here he not only ministered to his flock, but enjoyed the privileges of the University 
and participated in the controversies aroused by the followers of Arminius, taking the Calvinistic . 
side with much earnestness. Here, too, he ministered to those of his congregation who did not cross 
the ocean, till his death in March, 1625; and here he was buried in lowly fashion indicative of a con- 
siderable degree of poverty ; but with evidence of public estimate of his real worth on the part of the 
Dutch community. His numerous works are written in a sweet-tempered spirit, but are far from 
presenting the inclination toward so-called progressive thought in doctrinal matters, which has 
often been attributed to him. In regard to the Jolzty of the church he looked upon change as not 
impossible in consequence of further study of God’s word. Among the many sources of informa- 
tion regarding his life and labors I may cite J. Belknap, A szerzcan Biography, Boston, 1794-08, 11: 
151-178; Brook, Lives of the Puritans, 11: 334-44: Hanbury, Alemorzals, 1: 185-463, passz2 
(with much reference to his writings); Hunter, Collections Concerning the Church : 
Jformed at Scrooby, London, 1854, pp. 90-99; Fletcher, History . . . of Independency in 
England, London, 1862, I1: 249-II1: 80, Zasstm ; Punchard, History of Congregationalism, III: 
300-344 (a summary of his writings); Bacon, Geneszs of the N. E. Chs., passim, Dexter, Cong. as 
seen, 359-410. Dexter’s Bibliography gives the titles of eleven separate writings of which Robin- 
son is the author; ten of which may be found in R. Ashton’s Works of John Robinson, etc., 3 
vols., London, 1851. A somewhat extended memoir, by the editor, may be found in the Works, 1: 
xi-Ixxiv., and is reprinted in ¢ Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., 1: 111-164. 

2 Bacon, Genesis, p. 232, makes this suggestion. 

3 That this event did not occur till the company reached Leyden is implied by Gov. Bradford, 
Flistory of Plymouth Plantation, pp. 10, 17. 

4 William Brewster, in whose house at Scrooby the church had gathered after its separation 
from the Gainsborough body, was one of the most eminent of the company in station and influence. 
His birthplace is uncertain, but was not improbably in the vicinity of Scrooby, and his life began 
some time between 1560 and 1564. He studied Latin so as to have a ready use of the language, had 
some knowledge of Greek, and was for a brief and uncertain period at the University of Cam- 
bridge. We next find him in the service of the Puritan, William Davison, Ambassador and Secre- 
tary of State to Queen Elizabeth. With Davison, Brewster went on a mission to Holland in 1585, 
and doubtless may have cherished hopes of political advancement till the Queen dismissed Davison 
in disgrace, in 1587, as having been too zealous in procuring the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots. 
Thrown thus out of employment, Brewster went to Scrooby, and there succeeded his father as 
postmaster about the beginning of 1589. (His father, also named William Brewster, survived till 
the summer of 1590.) His office implied the furnishing of lodging and transport for government 
servants, as well as the forwarding of letters. In discharge of his duties he occupied a large 
‘*manor house,”’ belonging to the Archbishop of York for centuries, and which, though in bad re- 
pair, gave ample room for the gathering of the Separatist church. He held office till Sept., 1607, 
just previous to his attempt to leave England for Holland in company with his brethren of the 
church. Settled at last in Leyden, he supported himself by teaching and printing. Here he was 
elected ruling elder, and when a portion of the church emigrated to Plymouth in 1620, he was the 
spiritual leader of the expedition. As the Plymouth company looked upon themselves as in a de- 


ITS LIFE AT LEYDEN 85 


for eleven years and many for the remainder of their earthly lives. 
But, though settled in one of the most attractive cities of Europe, 
their life was hard and their circumstances uncongenial. As 
Englishmen they longed to be under English law. They would 
gladly live on English soil could they finda spot where they might 
worship God and train up their children in the institutions of the 
Gospel. Probably their type of Separatism was not so uncompro- 
mising as that of the London-Amsterdam Church, and certainly we 
have much evidence that the opposition of their pastor, Robinson, 
as he advanced in years, was more against the ceremonies of the 
Church of England than the doctrine of royal supremacy.’ They 
were anxious to go to America, and they were desirous of going as 
Englishmen and underan English charter. And so it happened that 
when they applied to the London-Virginia company, in 1617, for per- 
mission to settle somewhere on the wide stretch of American coast 
then known by the name of Virginia, the agents of the church, Dea- 
con John Carver and Robert Cushman, carried with them to London 
the seven articles of belief which are here presented, designing 
them to serve as an assurance to the company or the king should 
doubt be cast upon their orthodoxy or loyalty. Of course, under 
such circumstances, the points of difference between them and the 
Church of England would be minimized. Yet that these differences 
gree still part of the Leyden body and, while competent to act for themselves, as still under Robin- 
son’s pastorate, Brewster, though retaining the title of ruling elder, was practically the pastor 
of the Plymouth church in all save the administration of the sacraments for the ten years or there- 
about which elapsed between the landing in 1620 and the beginning of the pastorate of Ralph Smith. 
Here he was noted as a vigorous and effective preacher and as possessed of much gift in prayer, 
He died in April, 1643 or 1644. His friend Bradford, and Morton in his Wemmorzad/, give the former 
date ; the Plymouth church records, from the hand of Morton, give the latter. His memory is that 
of astrong, earnest, spiritual-minded man. The facts of his life may be found in Bradford, W7story 
of Plymouth Plantation, passim, especially the biographical sketch on pp. 408-14. This memoir 
is also printed in Young’s Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers, pp. 461-69, and in substance from 
the Plymouth Ch. records by Davis in his edition of Morton’s AZemorzal (1826), 222-224. Belknap, 
American Biography, 11: 252-266, has a sketch. Hunter, Collections concerning the Ch. 
JSormed at Scrooby, etc., (t854,) 53-90, has many valuable facts. A life of Brewster was published 
by A. Steele, Chief of the Pilgrims, etc., Philadelphia, 1857. Bacon, Genesis of the N. £. Chs., 
passim. T.¥. Henderson in Dict. National Biography, (1886,) vi: 304, 305. Deane has pub- 
lished a letter of Stanhope to Davison, of Aug. 22, 1590, throwing light upon the time when Brad- 
ford became postmaster. Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc., May 1871, 98-103. 

1 Dexter, Cong. as seen, pp. 392-397, notes and illustrates his,»gradual change from extreme 
Separatism to a position not far from that of the Puritans, a position which held that the English 
Church was unchristian in ceremonies and constitution, but not in a condition where reform was 
hopeless or Christian life within its fold impossible. This view seems to prevail in Robinson’s, 


Iust and Necessarie Apologie, 1625, Works, 111: 5-79. See also Cotton’s testimony, Way of 
Cong. Churches Cleared, London, 1648, Pt. I: pp. 8, 9- 


86 THE MAYFLOWER CHURCH 


should be ignored to sucha degree, and that Robinson and Brew- 
ster should be willing to sign the document, seems little less than 
amazing. At the first glance it seems the surrender of much for 
which they witnessed and suffered ; and further examination but 
confirms this opinion. But we shall do injustice to men in a very 
difficult position should we deem it a complete surrender. Robin- 
son and Brewster were willing to accept a substantially Erastian 
theory of the relations of church and sovereign. ‘They were will- 
ing to admit that there is no “apeale from his authority or judg- 
ment in any cause whatsoever, but y in all thinges obedience is 
dewe unto him,” at least passive obedience, even when his com- 
mands are contrary to God’s word. The’ king’s right to appoint 
bishops, or other officers, and endow them with civil authority to 
rule the churches “civilly according to y® Lawes of y* Land” was 
fully admitted. But they nowhere acknowledged or implied that 
the officers of the Church of England have any divine warrant or 
spiritual authority. They said, in effect, that the bishops and other 
clergy are magistrates, like the justices or sheriffs, whom the king 
as absolute civil ruler has alegal right to appoint, and to whom 
the laws give certain powers. The Separatists of Leyden were not 
rebels, and even if they dishked the system they would not oppose 
the undoubted royal right. Yet as to the spiritual character or 
powers of these persons they would maintain their own opinions, 
They wished peace with the king and the realm, and to secure it, 
while not willing to unite with the Established Church, they were 
willing to show respect to the constituted officers of that Church so 
far as they represent the royal authority.” That it was by no 
means regarded by the English authorities in church and state asa 
submission to the Church by law established is shown by the fact 
that though many of the Virginia company found the articles satis- 
factory, King James, and Abbot, the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
opposed the request for a charter.* In hope, therefore, that a 





1 This duty of obedience or at least passive submission to the will of the magistrate is further 
set forth by Robinson, /vst and Necessarite Apologie, Works, II1: 62, 63. 

2 As illustrative of this interpretation compare Robinson /ust and Necessary Afpologie, (1625,) 
Works, WII: 69-71. 

3 Compare Bradford, 7st. Plym. Plant, pp. 29-41. 


CHARACTER OF THE SEVEN ARTICUES 87 


é 


further explanation would accomplish the desired result, Robin- 
son and Brewster sent, in January, 1618, two notes to Sir John 
Wolstenholme, a member of the Virginia company whom they had 
reason to think was favorably disposed toward their enterprise. 
These notes were designed to define the beliefs of the Leyden 
church more clearly, and were alternate forms to be laid before the 
Privy Council as Sir John should deem best.’ As of value in show- 
ing the position of the Leyden church at this period, they will be 
found appended to the Seven Articles. In spite of all explanations, 
however, the utmost that the church could obtain was an unre- 
corded promise that if its members behaved themselves peaceably 
the king would overlook their doings, and a patent from the Vir- 
ginia company granting to one of their friends in England (of 
course in intention as their representative) some lands supposed to 
lie not far from the Hudson river;? a document which, as the 
event proved, was never to be used. 

But though the end of their preparation of creeds for submis- 
sion to the English authorities had come, their difficulties in 
going to America were by no means over, and it was not till 
after further tedious negotiation, into the details of which it 
would be aside from our purpose to enter, that somewhat less 
than half the church, under the spiritual guidance of Brewster, 
got away at last from Leyden, in July, 1620, leaving the remainder 
under Robinson to keep a place for their return should the adven- 
ture fail, or follow them in case of success, as opportunity would 
permit. Never did an enterprise start more unpropitiously. It 
was only after numberless hindrances in England, and two un- 
successful attempts to sail from that island, that the more steadfast 
members of the little company were able to get off in their single 
ship from the English Plymouth, September 6, (O. S.) 1620. On 
November g, they were in sight of Cape Cod, and on November 11, 
having been compelled to abandon the attempt to reach the neigh- 
borhood of the Hudson, they came to anchor in Provincetown Har- 
bor. Here it was, on this eleventh of November, that the little 


1 Compare /é7d., pp. 33-36. 
2 Jbid., pp. 40-41. This charter, granted to a John Wincob, probably a Puritan minister in 
the service of the Countess of Lincoln, was_ early lost and its exact provisions are unknown, 


S38 THE MAYFLOWER CHURCH 


company combined themselves into a civil body politic. They were 
in a region belonging nominally indeed to the English crown, but 
they were outside the limits of their patent, for though we do not 
know the terms of that document, we know that the London-Virginia 
company had no jurisdiction north of 41°.’ Then, too, there were 
others beside the Leyden Separatists on the ship, whose loyalty to 
the purposes of the colony was dubious, and the organized force 
of the community might be needed to hold them in check. Gov. 


Bradford thus explains the circumstances: ? 


‘*T shall a litle returne backe and begine with a combination made by them 
before they came ashore, being y® first foundation of their govermente in this 
place; occasioned partly by y® discontented & mutinous speeches that some of 
the strangers amongst them had let fall from them in y® ship—That when they 
came a shore they would use their owne libertie; for none had power to comand 
them, the patente they had being for Virginia, and not for Newengland, which 
belonged to an other Goverment, with which y® Virginia Company had nothing 
to doe. And partly that shuch an acte by them done (this their condition consid- 
ered) might be as firme as any patent, and in some respects more sure.” 


It is more than possible, also, that such a combination had 
been planned even before the expedition left Leyden. A letter 
of Robinson has been preserved, written to the company just after 
they had left Holland, in the summer of 1620, in which he warns 
them; 


‘* Your intended course of ciuill communitie wil minister continuall occasion of 
offence, and will be as fuell for that fire, except you diligently quench it with 
brotherly forbearance.” 


And, a little later adds the exhortation : 


‘‘ Lastly, whereas you are to become a body politik, vsing amongst your selues 
ciuill gouernment, and are not furnished with any persons of speciall eminencie 
aboue the rest, to be chosen by you into office of gouernment: Let your wisedome 
and godlinesse appeare, not onely in chusing such persons as do entirely loue, and 
will diligently promote the common good, but also in yeelding vnto them all due 
honour and obedience in their lawfull administrations.* 


1 The forty-first degree of latitude falls a little north of New York city. 

2 Bradford, W7zst. Plym. Plant, p. 89. 

31 quote from Mourt’s Relation, pp. x, xi (Dr. Dexter’s edition xliv-xlvi). A note of 
Dr. Dexter puts this interpretation on the passages. The letter may also be found in Brad- 
ford, Hzst. Plym. Plant, pp. 64-67 ; Morton’s MWemorzadl, pp. 6-9 (Davis ed. pp. 25-29) ; Hazard’s 
Historical Collections, 1: 96-99; Hanbury, Memorials, 1: 394-396. I am aware that Bradford 
omits the important word Zo in the clause beginning Lastly, whereas; and that Robinson may 
therefore be made to mean simply that they are now under the Virginia patent; but he seems to 
me to mean more than that, when both passages are considered. 


THE MAYFLOWER COMPACT 89 


The Mayflower Compact is in no sense a creed or a religious 
covenant ; but it is none the less the direct fruit of the teachings 
of Congregationalism. That system recognized as the constitu- 
tive act of a church a covenant individually entered into between 
each member, his brethren, and his God, pledging him to submit 
himself to all due ordinances and officers and seek the good 
of all his associates. In like manner this compact bound its 
signers to promote the general good and to yield obedience to 
such laws as the community should frame. The Separatist Pilgrims 
on the Mayflower constituted a state by individual and mutual 
covenant, just as they had learned to constitute a church; and 
therefore the Mayflower Compact deserves a place among the 


creeds and covenants of Congregationalism.’ 


THE SEVEN ARTICLES’ 


Seven Artikes which y* Church of Leyden sent to y® Counsell 
of England to bee considered of in respeckt of their judgments 
occationed about theer going to Virginia Anno 1618. 

1. To y*confession of fayth published in y® name of y* Church 
of England’ & to every artikell theerof wee do w" y® reformed 
churches wheer wee live & also els where assent wholy. 

2. As wee do acknolidg y® docktryne of fayth theer tawght so 
do wee y° fruites and effeckts of y® same docktryne to y® begetting of 
saving fayth in thousands in y® land (conformistes & reformistes) 
as y° ar called w" whom also as w" our bretheren wee do desyer 


1 The literature having to do with the history of the Scrooby-Leyden Plymouth church is 
very voluminous; but the following readily accessible works will either put the student in posses- 
sion of about all the facts or show him where they may be obtained. Sources. Bradford, Wéstory 
of Plymouth Plantation; Mourt’s Relation ; Young’s Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers (Boston, 
1841-4) ; Morton’s Memoriadi (for these works see ante p.81); Dexter, English Exiles in Amster- 
dam, in2 Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc., V1: 41 (June, 1890), LIrERATURE. a. Formation of the church and 
sojourn in Holland. Geo. Sumner, Memoirs of the Pilgrims at Leyden, in 3 Coll. Mass. Hist. 
Soc., 1X: 42-74; W.H. Bartlett, Tre Pilgrim Fathers, London, 1853 (especially valuable for its 
beautiful engravings of the scenes associated with the Pilgrims); Hunter, Collections concerning 
the Church . . . formed at Scrooby, London, 1854; Dexter, Recent Discoveries concerning 
the Plymouth Pilgrims, in Cong. Quarterly, VV : 58-66, (Jan. 1862); Ibid., Letter, in 7 Proc. 
Mass. Hist. Soc., X11: 184-186 (Jan. 1872) ; Ibid., Cong. as seen, 316, 317, 359-410; Ibid., The Pid- 
grins of Leyden, in the New England Magazine, 1: 49-61 (Sept. 1889. This number is filled 
with interesting sketches of Scrooby and Plymouth). 4. General accounts of the origin of the 
church and settlement of the colony. Palfrey, Wrst. New England, 1: 133-231; Punchard, H7st, 
Congregationalism, II1: 277-434; Bacon, Genesis of the N. E. Churches, pp. 199 e¢ segg ; Prof. 
F, B. Dexter, in Winsor’s Narrative and Crit. Hist., U1: 257-294; Goodwin, The Pilgrim 
Republic, Boston, 1888 (a valuable treasure-house of facts regarding Plymouth colony). 

2 Text from Bancroft, 3i.e., the XX XIX Articles. 


D 


gO THE MAYFLOWER CHURCH 


to keepe sperituall communion in peace and will pracktis in our 
parts all lawfull thinges. 

3. The King’s Majesty wee acknolidg for Supreame Governer 
in his Dominion in all causes and over all:parsons,’ and y’* none 
maye decklyne or apeale from his authority or judgment in any 
cause whatsoever, but y in all thinges obedience is dewe unto him, 
ether active, if y* thing commanded be not agaynst God’s woord, 
or passive yf itt bee, except pardon can bee obtayned.’* 

4. Wee judg itt lawfull for his Majesty to apoynt bishops, civill 
overseers, or officers in awthoryty onder hime, in y* severall prov- 
inces, dioses, congregations or parrishes to oversee y® Churches * 
and governe them civilly according to y* Lawes of y® Land, untto 
whom y®® ar in all thinges to geve an account & by them to bee 
ordered according to Godlynes. 

5. The authoryty of y®° present bishops in y* Land wee do ac- 
knolidg so far forth as y® same is indeed derived from his Majesty 
untto them and as y* proseed in his name, whom wee will also 
theerein honor in all things and hime in them.°® 

6. Wee beleeve y* no sinod, classes, convocation or assembly 
of Ecclesiasticall Officers hath any power or awthoryty att all but 
as y* same by y® Majestraet geven unto them.’ 

7, Lastly, wee desyer to geve untto all Superiors dew honnor 
to preserve. y*® unity of y* speritt w™ all y feare God, to have peace 
w™ all men what in us lyeth & wheerein wee err to bee instructed 
by any. 

Subscribed by 
Joun Rosinson, 
and 
WILLYAM BRUSTER. 


THe NOTES OF EXPLANATION ® 


The first breefe note was thts. 


Touching y* Ecclesiasticall ministrie, namly of pastores for 
teaching, elders for ruling, & deacons for distributing y® churches 


1 Persons. 2 7. e., that, and so elsewhere. : 

3 The article does not mean that the signers are willing to do all that the king commands. 
But they promise that if the action required is so contrary to the law of God that they cannot per- 
form it, they will peacefully submit to the penalties for its omission, making no resistance to the 
ordinary course of the law other than a proper effort to obtain a pardon, 

4 Observe the plural form. 5 J. e., the churches, 

6 Notice the care with which this article avoids ascribing any spiritual authority to the clergy 
of the Establishment. 

7 This article is designed to be a denial of Presbyterianism. 

8 Text from Bradford's History Plym. Plant. 


teal OF THE ARTICLES gI 


contribution, as allso for y® too Sacrements, baptisme, and y* Lords 
supper, we doe wholy and in all points agree with y® French re- 
formed churches, according to their publick confession’ of faith. 
The oath of Supremacie we shall willingly take if it be required 
of us, and that conveniente satisfaction be not given by our taking 


y° oath of Alleagence.’ 
JouHN Ros: 


WILLIAM BREWSTER. 


Versa guas es, 

Touching y® Ecclesiasticall ministrie, &c. as in y® former, we 
agree in all things with the French reformed churches, according 
to their publick confession of faith; though some small differences 
be to be found in our practises, not at all in y* substance of the 
things, but only in some accidentall circumstances. 

1. As first, their ministers doe pray with their heads covered; 
ours uncovered. 

2. We chose none for Governing Elders but such as are able 
to teach; which abilitie they doe not require. 

3.. Their elders & deacons are aniall, or at most for 2. or 3. 
years; ours perpetuall. 

4. Our elders doe administer their office in admonitions & ex- 
communications for publick scandals, publickly & before y® congre- 
gation; theirs more privately, & in their consistories. 

5. We doe administer baptisme only to such infants as wherof 
y® one parente, at y° least, is of some church, which some of ther 
churches doe not observe; though in it our practice accords with 
their publick confession® and y*® judgmente of y* most larned 
amongst them. 

Other differences, worthy mentioning, we know none in these 
points. Then aboute y* oath, as in-y* former.* 


Subscribed, 
Joun R. 


Webs 


1 This confession may be found in Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom, III: 356-382. See espe-. 
cially Articles XXIX-XXXVIII. 

2 The oath of Supremacy, imposed by Henry VIII. in 1531, was reéstablished in the first year 
of Elizabeth. The person taking it swore ‘that the queen’s highness is the only supreme governor 
of this realm . . . as well in all spiritual and ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal.” All 
allegiance to foreign powers or prelates is renounced. The oath of Allegiance was imposed in 1605 
under James, and implied complete submission to the king as temporal sovereign. See Young, 
Chron. of the Pilgrim Fathers, p. 64, note. The text of the oath of Supremacy may be found in, 
Hallam, Constit. Hist. England, Ch. III, note (ed. New York, 1882, p. 121). 

3 Article XXXV of French Confession. Schaff, Creeds, III: 379. 

4This sentence and the opening clause of this note are doubtless simply Bradford’s sum- 
mary of the statements given in full in the preceding note. 


Q2 THE MAYFLOWER CHURCH 


THE MAYFLOWER ComMPACT ' 


N the name of God, Amen. We whose names are vnderwritten, 
| the loyall Subiects of our dread soveraigne Lord King IAMEs, 
by the grace of God of Great Britaine, France, and Jreland King, 
Defender of the Faith, &c. 

Having vnder-taken for the glory of God, and advancement 
of the Christian Faith, and* honour of our King and Countrey, a 
Voyage to plant the first Colony in the Northerne parts of ViR- 
GINIA, doe by these presents solemnly & mutually in the presence 
of God and one of? another, covenant, and combine our selues 
together into a civill body politike, for our better ordering and 
preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid ; and by 
vertue hereof to* enact, constitute, and frame such iust and equall 
Lawes, Ordinances, acts, constitutions,’ offices’ from time to time, 
as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the generall 
good of the Colony: vnto which we, promise all due submission 
and obedience. In witnesse whereof we haue here-vnder’ sub- 
scribed our names,° Cape Cod® 11. of Movember in the yeare of” 
the raigne of our soveraigne Lord King Iams, of England, France, 
and Jreland 18."' and of Scotland 54." Anno Domino 1620. 


1 Text from Mourt’s Relation. 2 Morton, Memorzadi, inserts the after and. 
3 Morton, Memorzall, omits of. 4 Morton reads do. 

5 Bradford and Morton insert axd. 6 Morton reads officers. 

7 Morton reads hereunto. 8 Bradford and Morton insert az. 

9 Bradford and Morton insert the. 10 Morton omits the yeare of. 


11 Bradford and Morton read the eighteenth. 
12 Bradford and Morton read the fiftze fourth. 


VI 


Pore VELOPMENT OF COVENANT ANDYCREED 
IN THE SALEM CHURCH, 1629-1665 


TEXTS 

No record appears to have been kept during the first six or seven years of the 
history of the church at Salem. About 1637 a church-book was started, but as it came 
to be in dilapidated condition and was filled with personal reflections of a somewhat 
censorious nature, it was sequestered in 1660 ;! and its more important portions copied in 
that year, or the year following, into a new book, which still exists,—a second and 
older copy will be described shortly. This record of 1637 began, it is well-nigh 
certain, with the covenant? as renewed at the settlement of Hugh Peter in 1636. The 
covenant of 1629 is nowhere separately preserved ; it exists embedded in the renewal 
and enlargement of 1636. But, as already noted, even the original record of this re- 
newal is lost. The renewed covenant of 1636 is preserved in the two copies, already 
mentioned, either of which may be considered as representative of the original text, 
and differing only in slight verbal points, as follows : 

A. It is to be found in a book of excerpts from the original records of the Salem 
church, made by Rev. John Fiske,*® between 1636 and 1641, while he was serving as 
an occasional assistant to Rev. Hugh Peter, then pastor of the church. This little 
‘ book was apparently a private record of parochial affairs.4 The covenant here con- 
tained is printed in the Hist. Coll. Essex Institute, Vol. 1. No. 2, pp. 37, 38 (May, 
1859).° 

B. The other copy is in the revised church-book of 1660 or 1661, prepared soon 
after the settlement of John Higginson. This document is printed verdadem in the 
Proceedings of Essex Institute, 1: 262-264 (1856); by White, Vew England Con- 
gregationalism, pp. 13, 14; by Webber and Nevins, O/¢d Naumkeag, Salem, 1877, 
pp. 14-16; by Rev. Edmund B. Willson in the History of Essex County, Mass., 
Philadelphia, 1888, p. 24; and in modern spelling, by Upham, Address at the Re- 
Dedication of the Fourth Meeting-House of the First Church in Salem, Salem, 1867, 
pp. 63-65. 


1 The record of these transactions is to be found in White, Vew England Congregational- 
zsuz, Salem, 1861, pp. 47, 48. The first vote is Sept. 10, 1660. 

2 So to be inferred from the fact that it begins the church-book copy, /é2d., 117. 

8 A life of Rev. John Fiske may be found in Mather, Alagnadia, ed. 1853-5, 1: 476-480; 
Brook, Zzves, III: 468, 469; Sprague, Annals of the Am. Pulpit, New York, 1857, 1: 106, 107. 
He came to New England in 1637, lived in Salem, but soon moved to Wenham, where he became 
pastor of the church gathered there in 1644. About 1656 he removed to Chelmsford, and there died 
in 1676, leaving records of great value for New England Church History. 

4 See some observations by J. A. Emmerton, in Hist. Coll. Essex Ins., XV: 70-72 (1878). 

5 From the MS. note book, then inthe possession of David Pulsifer, Esq., of Boston. Some 
account of the preservation of this book may be found in White, V. Z. Cong., p. 20. 


(93) 


04 CREED DEVELOPMENT AT SALEM 


OTHER PRINTED COPIES 


Beside the carefully printed texts, already noticed, this renewal covenant of 
1636 early found a place on the pages of writers on New England ecclesiastical 
affairs. 

I. Rathband, 4 Briefe Narration of some Church Courses held in Opinion 
and Practise in the Churches lately erected in New England, London, 1644, pp. 17- 
Ig.!_ From Rathband it was copied into Hanbury, Memorials, 11: 310. Il. A Copy 
of the Church Covenants which have been used in the Church of Salem, Boston, 
1680.2 III. Mather, Magnalia, ed. 1702, Bk. 1: Ch. IV. Ed. 1853-5, I: 71. 
IV. Neal, Wistory of New England, London, 1720, I: 126-28 (from Mather). 
V. Rev. William Bentley, 4 Description and History of Salem, in 1 Coll, Mass. 
Hist. Soc., V1: 283-285. VI. Morton’s AZemoriall, Davis, ed. Boston, 1826, Ap- 
pendix, 389-90. VII. Upham, Second Century Lecture of the First Church, Salem, 
1829, pp. 67, 68. VIII. S. M. Worcester, Discourse delivered on the Lirst Centen- 
nial. . . of the Tabernacle Church, Salem, 1835 ; Appendix Us?) TX ria 
bury, Memorials, 1841, as cited underI. X. WV. &. Historical and Genealogical 
Register, I: 224, 225 (1847). XI. Morton’s Aemoriall, ed. Boston, 1855, 
Appendix, pp. 462-464. XII. Uhden, Mew England Theocracy, Conant’s transla- 
tion, Boston, 1858, pp. 61,62. XIII. Fletcher, History . . . of Independency 
in England, London, 1862, III: 131, 132. XIV. Waddington, Congregational 
History, 1567-1700, pp. 260, 261. XV. T. W. Higginson, Life of Francis 
Higginson, New York [1891], pp. 80, 81. 


The ANTI-QUAKER CLAUSE of 2660-7 is to be found in the new church record, 
made early in John Higginson’s pastorate, and is printed verbatim at the close of the 
renewed covenant of 1636 in the Proceedings of Essex Institute, 1: 264; in White, 
New England Congregationalism, p. 14; and in Webber and Nevins, O/d NMaum- 
keag, p. 16; and in Willson’s article in the /zstory of Essex County, p. 24. 


The DIRECTION of 7665 was printed in that year and does not appear in full on 
the church records, as it was not formally adopted by the church, though used by the 
pastor in certain admissions. This pamphlet was long lost to sight, but was discov- 
ered by Rev. Dr. J. B. Felt, the antiquary, and communicated by him to Rev. Dr. S. 
M. Worcester. It has since been printed in I. S. M. Worcester, Mew England's 
Glory and Crown. A Discourse delivered at Plymouth, Dec. 22, 1848, Boston, 
1849, pp. 54,55. Il. léed., in Salem Gazette, April 4, 1854.4 III. Morton, AZemo- 
viall, ed. 1855, Appendix, pp. 459-462. IV. Felt, Did the First Church of Salem 
originally have a Confession of Faith distinct from their Covenant? Boston, 1856, 
Appendix, pp. 23-25. V. White, Vew Lugland Congregationalism, Salem, 1861, 
1g0—192 (from Worcester). VI. Felt, Reply to the New England Congregationalism, 
etc., Salem, 1861, Appendix, The Confession of Faith may also be found in the 
Congregationalist, Jan. 2, 1890, 


1 Rathband gives with it the covenant of the church of Rotterdam, Holland, ‘renewed 
when Mr. 7/7. P. [Hugh Peter] was made their Pastour.’’ More will be said of this later. 

2 This excessively rare pamphlet is mentioned by Thomas, A7st. Printing in Amterica, Al- 
bany, 1874, II: 323. A MS. copy exists among the records of the Tabernacle Church, Salem. 

8 White, V. #.Cong., p.185. In the controversy between Worcester, White, and Felt, the docu- 
ment was several times printed in newspapers or pamphlets, 

4 White, V, Z. Cong., p. 206. 


CONTROVERSIAL LITERATURE 95 


LITERATURE 

The Salem Covenant and Direction have given rise to a considerable literature, 
much of it of a sharply controversial nature and not a little affected by doctrinal polem- 
ics. On the one hand, Rev. Dr. S. M. Worcester! and Rev. J. B. Felt, LL.D.,? in- 
sisted, in numerous publications,* that the Salem church had a creed as well as a covenant 
atits beginning and that the Direction of 1665 contains, to all intents and purposes, the 
form of creed adopted by the church in 1629; basing their arguments, for the most 
part, on a strict construction of the phrase employed by John Higginson in the title 
to the Direction itself ;4 and the expressions of Morton in writing of the formation of 
the Salem church.® They also held from the phraseology of its opening paragraph, 
the adaptation of its articles to 1636 rather than 1629, and possible hints in a pamphlet 
issued by the Salem church in 1680,° and in the AZagnadia,’ that the full covenant 
with nine articles (styled by me the ‘‘ Covenant of 1636”), could not date from 1629. 
Dr. Worcester also shrewdly guessed, simply from the wording of the opening sen- 
tences of this fuller covenant, that it embedded the covenant of 1629 in a single sen- 
tence.§ This latter view of Dr. Worcester’s was adopted, though without any special 
advance in clearness of proof over his argument, by Hon. Charles W. Upham’ and 
by Mr. George Punchard,!® who do not, however, follow him in his claims for the 
Direction. On the other hand, Judge D. A. White!’ has shown! that the church 


15. M. Worcester was born in 1801, graduated at Harvard 1822, taught in Amherst College 1823- 
1835. In thelatter year he became pastor of the Tabernacle Church, Salem, and so remained till 
1860. He died in 1866. He was alwaysa warm defender of Trinitarian Congregationalism. See 
Appleton’s Cyclopeara Am. Biog., V1: 613. 

2 J. B. Felt was born 1789, graduated at Dartmouth in 1813. Hewas pastorat Sharon, Mass., 
1821-1824, and at Hamilton, Mass., 1824-1833. Being compelled by ill-health to abandon the ac- 
tive work of the ministry, he obtained employment congenial to his antiquarian tastes, engaging 
from 1836 to 1846 in the arranging of the Mass. State Archives at Boston. In 1853 he became libra- 
rian of the Congregational Library, Boston. He died in 1869. In theology he sympathized with Dr. 
Worcester, See. Z. Hist. and Genealogical Register, XXIV: 1-5 (1870). 

3 The most important of these have been cited in the list of reprints of the various Salem docu- 
ments, especially those under the title ‘‘ Direction of 1665,’’ in the preceding paragraphs of this 
chapter. I may add Felt, Axnxals of Salem, 2d ed., Salem, 1845, 1849, Il: 567; and Felt, Accdesz- 
astical Hist. N. E., Boston, 1855, I: 115, 116, 267. Some references to newspaper publications are 
gathered up by White in his V. £. Congregationalism. 4 See text on page 119. 

5 Morton, Memoriadl, 73-76 ; Davis ed., 145-147; Hubbard, Gex. Hist. N. £., 118-120, follows 
Morton. 


8 Worcester, Discourse delivered on the First Centennial . . . of the Tabernacle Ch., 
Salem, 1835, Appendix U. White, V. £. Congregationalism, 187, 188. 

7 Ed. 1853-5, 1: 71, ‘“‘Covenant . . . which was about seven years after solemnly ve- 
xewed.”’ 8 Worcester, /ézd. White, Zézd. 


9 Upham, Address at the Re-Dedication of the Fourth Meeting-House of the First Church 
tn Salem, Salem, 1867, 20-30. He is disposed to give weight to the fact that a later hand has 
underscored the sentence in question, as if to render it specially conspicuous, in the copy recorded in 
the church-book of 1660-1. 

10 History of Congregationalism, 1V: 14. Punchard leaves the general controversy unde- 
cided. Webber and Nevins, in O/d Naumkeag, 13, 14, take the same view as Upham, but with- 
out argument. They also hold that the introduction to the enlarged covenant dates from 1660, a 
theory which a glance at Rathband proves untenable. 

11 D. A. White, born in 1776, graduated at Harvard,1797. After studying law, he was chosen 
to the Mass. legislature. He was made Probate Judge of Essex County in 1815 and held the office 
till 1853. From 1848 till his death he was president of the Essex Institute. He died in 1861. He 
was a Unitarian of the old school, a member of the First Church in Salem. See Proc. Mass. Hist. 
Soc., VI: 262-330 (Sept. 1862); and Hist. Coll. Essex Institute, V1: 1-24, 49-71 (1864). 

12 Tn various writings, all of which are summed up in his Vew England Congregationalism, 
Salem, 1861. 


96 CREED DEVELOPMENT AT SALEM 


records themselves amply account for the origin of the Direction in 1665. The 
use of any other standard than the Covenant at the formation of the church is to 
be denied because of the silence of those records as to any confession of faith adopted 
by the church, and the fact that the AZagnalia, though preserving the Covenant, does 
not hint at the existence of any other document, while the words of the other his- 
torians! do not necessarily imply more than one formula, since, as he claims, the de- 
scription ‘‘ confession” and ‘‘covenant” is not an unnatural one to apply to the 
many-articled Covenant [of 1636]. But Judge White goes so far as to claim also that 
the whole of the enlarged Covenant, except the brief formula of renewal at its begin- 
ning, should be dated back to 1629.” 

It is with considerable diffidence that the writer presumes to pass judgment upon 
the views of these learned contestants. But, it seems to him that material evidence has 
been overlooked on both sides. In his opinion Drs. Worcester and Felt were wholly 
wrong inclaiming that the Direction of 1665 can be the creed of 1629, as they would 
have it. The arguments of Judge White against this view are conclusive. But, if any 
proof was wanting, the writer would find it in the fact, which a few moments’ examination 
‘‘confession of faith” of the Dzrection is es- 
sentially an epitome of portions of the Westminster Catechism, from which much of 
its phraseology appears to be borrowed. It can therefore by no possibility be dated 
back to 1629. The utmost that can be claimed for the phrase employed by John Hig- 
ginson in the title of the Direction is that, in his judgment, it represented the doc- 
trinal position approved, in general, by the church from the beginning. But while 
Judge White was right on this point, he fell into error regarding the enlarged cove- 
nant, when he claimed that it dates back, in its entirety, to 1629. Dr. Worcester’s 
surmise was correct; the main portion of this Covenant is, at the earliest, of 1636 ;? 
and the covenant of 1629 which has come down to us is a single brief sentence em- 
bedded init. Evidence which Dr. Worcester seems to have overlooked enables us 
not only to bring fresh weight to the correctness of his surmise, but to assert with con- 
siderable confidence that the preamble and articles of the Covenant in its enlarged form 
are from the pen of Hugh Peter. William Rathband has preserved in a work published in 
London in 1644,‘ two covenants as illustrative of the practice of the Congregational 
churches. One is that adopted by the church in Rotterdam, Holland, when Peter became 
its pastor,’ the other our enlarged Salem Covenant. So similar are they in phraseology 
that the conclusion is hard to avoid that they were written by thesame person. The en- 
larged Covenant, with the exception of the single sentence which the preamble distinctly 
affirms to be the original Covenant, cannot therefore antedate Peter’s coming to Salem.°® 


seems to him to demonstrate, that the 





1 7, e,, Morton and Hubbard, see azfe, p. 95, note 5. 

2"White’s arguments were summed up and reinforced by Dr. Dexter in an article in the Congre- 
gationalist, Jan. 28, 1875, p. 3. See note 6, below. : 

3 Since Peter was not settled at Salem till December of that year. 

4 Rathband, A Briefe Narration of some Church Courses held in Opinion and Practise 
in the Churches lately erected in New England, pp. 17-19. This portion of Rathband’s work is 
quoted by Hanbury, Memorzals, 11: 309, 310. White twice alludes to Hanbury’s reprint of the 
Salem Covenant, New England Cong., pp. 21, 258; but seems not to have compared it with the 
Rotterdam Covenant preserved in the same passage. 

5 In 1629. 

6 The strongest argument which can be brought against the view here presented is the state- 
ment of Morton (and Hubbard) that the Salem church adopted ‘‘a confession of faith and cove- 
nant’’ in 1629. This dual expression, which applies admirably to the nine articled and lengthy 
covenant of 1636, cannot be made to fit the single sentence of 1629. It should, however, be remem- 
bered that Morton was not a contemporary writer. His work was published in 1669. Let it be con- 


PURITANS AND SEPARATISTS Q7 


jy Congregationalists whose standards have thus far been 
presented were Separatists, but the vast majority of those 
who were to come to the shores of New England were not Sepa- 
ratists but Puritans.’ Doctrinally there was little difference be- 
tween the two parties. Both were Calvinists of a pronounced 
type and both belived that in the Bible is to be found a sufficient 
rule for faith and church practice. But while the Separatist 
would withdraw from the English Establishment at once and for- 
ever, the Puritan remembered that the sixteenth century had seen 
the constitution, liturgy, and doctrinal standards of the English 
Church essentially altered at least four times by the united action 
of the sovereign and of Parliament.” He was not inclined, there- 
fore, to look upon the State Church as by any means in a hope- 
less condition. At first, in the early days of Elizabeth, Puritan 
opposition had been directed chiefly against certain rites and 
vestments; as the movement went on, the Puritans began to 
question more and more the warrant for the whole church con- 
stitution in its episcopal form; but they constantly hoped that 
that which had been established by law would be changed by 
legislative act. Nor was there, at first, anything which seemed 
unlikely in this supposition. Throughout the reign of Elizabeth 
the Puritans were a growing party ; they might soon, it was easy 
to believe, incline the sovereign and Parliament to enact the re- 


forms for which they longed. But, as we have seen,* there grew 


ceded, nevertheless, that he may have got his information from John Higginson, one of the mem- 
bers of the church in 1629 and a contemporary. Higginson was only 13 in 1629. He left Salem 
within a year or two and did not return till 1659. The church records were not kept from 1629 to 
1636 or 1637; and the book of records which John Higginson found on his return bore on its open- 
ing pages the covenant as enlarged in 1636. (See azfe, p. 93, note 2.) The opening paragraph of 
that enlarged covenant declares that something which follows is the ‘‘Church Covenant we find 
this Church bound untoat theire first beginning.’’ It isnot easy, from the document itself, tosee how 
much of what follows that declaration implies. In the absence of any ready means of test, such as 
Rathband affords, Higginson, or Morton, made the mistake of applying it to a7 rather than to a 
single sentence. The error was easy and natural and once made was readily followed by Hubbard 
and Mather. ; 

It is with satisfaction that I am able to record that the late Dr. Dexter, to whose judgment 
the conclusions thus outlined were submitted, expressed his concurrence, ina letter of Oct. 29, 1890, 
not only in this note but in the entire position here taken in regard to the merits of the discussion. 

1 The contrasts between the Separatist colony of Plymouth and the Puritan settlements of 
Massachusetts Bay have been sharply drawn by S. N. Tarbox, Plymouth and the Bay, in Cong. 
Quarterly, XVI1L: 238-252. 

2 The extent to which the Church of the Tudor period was the creature of the State is 
clearly shown in G. W. Childs’ Church and State under the Tudors, London, 1890. 

3 See ante, p. 77, note. 


98 CREED DEVELOPMENT AT SALEM 


up alongside of Puritanism, as the sixteenth century waned, the 
new jure divino Episcopacy of Bancroft and Bilson, a view which 
much increased the opposition between the Puritan and the 
‘High Anglican parties, while just in the degree in which it 
dominated those charged with the conduct of government it 
made vain the expectation of legislative change. Yet it was 
not till the elevation of Laud to the bishopric of London 
by Charles TL, in 1628, put a man at the head of onejorene 
most Puritanically inclined of English dioceses who was deter- 
mined to enforce absolute conformity to his high church views 
and who at the same time heartily supported the growing ab- 
solutism and tyranny of the crown, that the great majority of 
the Puritan party began to despair of churchly reform at home. 
Laud’s elevation to the see of Canterbury in 1633, as well as his 
influence over the king, placed all ecclesiastical England at his 
mercy; while the frustration by Charles of all attempts of Parlia- 
ment to limit the exercise of royal authority made men doubtful 
as to the prospects of civil liberty. It was natural, therefore, 
that the descriptions of the experiences of the Plymouth settlers, 
such as Mourt’s elation, or Winslow’s Good News from New 
England,’ should attract attention among the Puritans and stimu- 
late inquiry among the more adventurous as to the feasibility 
of planting colonies beyond the ocean out of the reach of Laud. 
It would be far from correct to say that it was any general long- 
ing for freedom of conscience or universal toleration that moved 
these men to think of America; it was an impulse of a much 
simpler and, considering the age in which they lived, of a far 
more natural character. They believed certain practices in the 
government and worship of the Church of England to be contrary 
to the Word of God. They did not desire to separate from that 
great body,’ or brand it as in its entirety anti-Christian, as some 


1 Published in 1622 and 1624, respectively. 

2 See the views on separation reported by Mather (Magnadza, ed. 1853-5, 1: 362) to have been 
uttered by Francis Higginson as he left England. But perhaps the kindly feeling of these emi- 
grants toward the Church of England, in spite of its errors, is best seen in the Hws2dle Regvest of 

. the Governour and the Company late gone for Nevv-England ; To the rest of their 
eee in and of the Church of England. For the obtaining of thetr Prayers, etc. Lon- 
don, 1630(also Hubbard, Gex. Hist., pp. 126-128 ; Hutchinson, 7st. Mass. Bay, 1 : 487-489 ; Hazard, 


PURITAN SETTLEMENTS 99 


of the extremer Separatists had done. They wanted to get out 
of the way of the ecclesiastical courts and the high church 
bishops to some place where they could discard such of the cere- 
monies of the church as seemed superstitious and practice such 
things as seemed to them directly enjoined by Scripture. 

It was not long after the landing of the Plymouth founders 
that attempts looking toward further settlements on the coast of 
the present State of Massachusetts were made. Some of these 
attempts were by Church of England and royalist sympathizers, 
sent out by Sir Ferdinando Gorges and others, to take posses- 
sion of the lands about Massachusetts Bay, to which he held claim. 
These settlements, begun in 1622,and permanently carried on after 
1623, caused trouble enough to the Separatists of Plymouth and 
to the Puritans who afterward occupied the soil on which they 
were established.* But our concern here is with the endeavors of 
the Puritans to secure a home in the new world. These efforts had 
their remote beginnings in the fishing trade, which then, as now, 
could advantageously be carried on by vessels making those shores 


fTistorical Collections, Philadelphia, 1792-4, I : 305-307 : Young, Chron. . . . Mass., 295-208. 
Palfrey, Wzst. V. £., 1: 312, reports a rumor ascribing its composition to Rev. John White of Dor- 
chester, Eng.). This document was signed by Winthrop, Dudley, Johnson, Phillips, and others. 
A single extract will suffice: ‘‘ Wee desire you would be pleased to take Notice of the Principals, 
and Body of our Company, as those who esteeme it our honour to call the Church of England, 
from whence wee rise, our deare Mother. . . . Wee’leave it not therefore, as loathing that 
milk wherewith we were nourished there, but blessing God for the Parentage and Education, as 
Members of the same Body, shall always rejoice in her good.’’ Ofcourse there were differences in 
degree of opposition against English ecclesiastical officers and institutions. When Winthrop and 
his brethren came to choose Wilson as teacher of the Boston-Charlestown church, August 27, 1630, 
they ‘‘used imposition of hands, but with this protestation by all, that it was only as a sign of 
election and confirmation, not of any intent that Mr. Wilson should renounce the ministry he re- 
ceived in England.””’ Winthrop A7zst. V. £. (or Journal), Savage’s 2d ed., Boston, 1853, I : 38-39. 
But the same George Phillips, who signed the Humble Regvest with Winthrop, and who had been 
a minister of the Church of England in Essex, told Doctor Fuller of Plymouth, in June, 1630, 
16 days after landing, that ‘‘if they will have him stand minister, by that calling which he received 
from the preiates in England, he will leave them.’’ Bradford’s Letter Book, 7 Cold. Mass. 
Ffist. Soc., 11:74; Dexter, Cong. as seen, p. 417. The Boston church was so well known to be 
Non-conformist rather than Separatist, that when Roger Williams was invited in 1631 to supply its 
pulpit during Wilson’s absence, he refused because he ‘‘ durst not officiate to an unseparated peo- 


ple, as, upon examination and conference, I [he] found them to be.’’ Williams’ Letter to Cotton 
the younger, in z Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc., 111: 316, Mch. 1858. See also Dexter, As to Roger Williams, 
p.4; and G. E. Ellis, Purttan Age . . zim . . Mass., Boston, 1888, p. 271. Many illustra- 


tions of the varying positions taken by the founders of New England on the validity of episcopal 
ordination are given by Dr. J. H. Trumbull in a note to his reprint of Lechford’s Plazu Dealing, 
Boston, 1867, pp. 16, 17. 

1 The best account of these anti-Puritan settlements, and of the doings of Thomas Morton 
and other leaders in them, is that of Charles Francis Adams, Three Episodes of Massachusetts 


History, Boston, 1892, I; 1-360, 


100 CREED DEVELOPMENT AT SALEM 


a base of supply. Since more men could be employed in fishing 
than were needed to sail the vessels home, it occurred to some of 
those interested in the business that it would be well to have the 
unnecessary members of the crews remain in New England and 
form a permanent colony, from which supplies could be drawn. 
Such a plan was put into practice by the Dorchester (county of 
Dorset) Fishing Company, a stock partnership organized by the 
Puritan, Rev. John White, of that place; and in 1623 or 1624 men 
were actually sent out and settled on Cape Ann.’ About a year 
after the beginning of this settlement Roger Conant, an earnest 
Puritan, who had been some time at Plymouth, but in disfavor, 
went thither to take its affairs in charge. The colony proved a 
poor venture, but Conant was minded to stay; and accordingly, 
since he did not think the rocky shores of Cape Ann favorable for 
a settlement, he removed, in 1626, to the spot then called Naum- 
keag, but better known by its later name of Salem.’ 

Thus far the work had been done without a special or certainly 
valid patent,* and had had trade as its principal aim. But White 
had conceived the idea of a Puritan colony beyond the sea, and set 


1See J. W. Thornton’s handsome monograph, Landing at Cape Anne, etc. Boston, 1854, 
pp. 39-60. The Plymouth colonists secured a grant from Lord Sheffeild (one of the Council for 
New England) dated Jan. 1, 1623 (O. S.), z. e. Jan. 11, 1624, of our reckoning, authorizing them to 
establish a fishing settlement and town where Gloucester now is. Thornton gives the full text of 
the patent (pp. 31-35) and a beautiful fac-simile. Capt. John Smith, in his General? Historie, Lon- 
don, 1624, p. 247, records that the Dorchester company’s colony sheltered itself under the Plymouth 
colonist’s patent. But they cannot have much regarded it, indeed, it was really worthless (see 
Memorial Hist. of Boston, 1: 60, 74, 92), and they were soon in open quarrel with Standish and 
others of Plymouth, and were holding the Cape-Ann territory by force. Compare also Prof. H. B. 
Adams, Hisher-Plantation on Cape Anne, in Hist. Coll. Essex Inst., XIX: 81-go (1882). See also 
Hubbard, 110, 111; and a note, by Deane, to Bradford, W7st. Plym. Plant., ed. 1856, 168, 169. A 
good sketch of Conant is that by Felt, in V. £. Hist. and Genealogical Register, 11: 233-239, 329- 
335 (1848). The whole matter of this colony and its enlargement into a Puritan settlement is set 
forth briefly in John White’s most valuable Planter’s Plea, London, 1630; reprinted in part in 
Young, Civ07. 250. Wi 2S545D0=19-16: 


2 Our chief source of information, aside from White, Plaxter’s Plea, on all these matters is 
Hubbard, General History of New England, printed at Boston (2d ed.) 1848, pp. ror-120. See 
also Young, Chronicles . . . af Massachusetts, Boston, 1846, Jass¢m, and Phippen in A7zs¢. 
Coll. Essex Inst., 1: 94, 145, 185. Palfrey, History af N. E., 1: 283-301, and Deane in Winsor’s 
Narrative and Critical Hist. I11: 295-312, have good accounts of these events. Prof. Adams’s 
Origin of Salem Plantation, in Hist. Coll. Essex Inst, XIX: 153-166, has facts of value; and 
Haven's The Mass. Company, in Winsor’s Mentorial Hist. of Boston, Boston, 1882, I: 87-98, is 
worth consulting. 

3See above, note 1. Conant was a Puritan, but, like White, a conformist enough to be 
attached to the Church of England and opposed to Separatism. With him came to minister to the 
wants of the little colony a John Lyford, a clergyman of the Church of England in sympathy with 
the Establishment, who had made much trouble at Plymouth when there with Conant, and who 


THE MASSACHUSETTS COMPANY IOI 


out now to procure a patent and enlist Puritan sympathy. The 
body having nominal authority over New England was the “Coun- 
cil established at Plymouth, in the County of Devon, for the plant- 
ing, ruling, ordering, and governing of New England in America,” 
a corporation whose charter had been sealed on November 3, 1620;' 
and which, though possessing a title, in name at least, to all land 
between 40° and 48° from the Atlantic to the Pacific, was essen- 
tially a trading and fishing monopoly for Sir Ferdinando Gorges 
and his friends, and soon attracted the unfavorable notice of Par- 
liament.? This Plymouth Council, being anxious to make such use 
of their property as they could, was persuaded to grant to a Puri- 
tan land company,* of which John Endicott was a member, that 
portion of the New World lying between lines drawn three miles 
north of the Merrimac and the same distance to the south of the 
Charles, by an instrument issued March 19, 1628. As the agent of 
this new company, Endicott came out with a few settlers, landing 
at Salem September 6 of the same year. Meanwhile White was 
zealously introducing the Puritanly inclined members of this new 
land company to like-minded men in England, with a view to 
building up large Puritan settlements in America. The result 
was that the land company was re-formed with many new mem- 
bers, and, on March 4, 1629, was provided with a royal charter’ 
organizing it into the “ Governor and Company of the Mattachu- 
setts Bay in Newe England,” and giving it power to admit freemen, 
elect officers, and make laws of local application to all its territories. 
This organization at once pushed on the work with vigor. A large 
band of colonists was got together, to be sent over to Salem in 
the spring of 1629. As the Company was strongly Puritan and the 
aim of the emigration chiefly religious, it is no wonder that we 
find them early negotiating for ministers to serve the spiritual 


had left Plymouth for Nantasket in Conant’s company. Lyford’s character was none of the best. 
See Hubbard, pp. 106, 107. Bradford, H7zst. Plyw. Plant., pp. 171, 173, 192-196. Young, Chron. 
. . « Mass., p. 20. There was no church at Salem, in a Congregational sense, till after the com- 
ing of Endicott. 

1 The text of this patent may be found in Hazard, Historical Collections, Philadelphia, 1792- 
1794, I: 103-118. 

2 See C. F. Adams, Three Episodes of Mass. History, 1: 127-129. 

8 Some quotations from this charter are preserved in the charter of 1629. See note 4. 

4Text, Recordsof . . . Mass. Bay, Boston, 1853, I: 3-20. 


102 CREED DEVELOPMENT AT SALEM 


wants of the new colony. Three were secured,’ Francis Bright,’ 
Francis Higginson,’ and Samuel Skelton;* and another, Ralph 
Smith,* obtained passage in the Company’s ships; but only Higgin- 
son and Skelton remained permanently with the Salem colonists. 
On their arrival, late in June, 1629, the ministers found the 
ground fully prepared for the planting of religious institutions. 
As has been already pointed out, the Salem settlers, though Puri- 
tans, were not Separatists, and had most of them been inclined to 
look upon the men of Plymouth as dangerous innovators. But 
sickness had laid heavy hand on the little company under Endicott 
at Salem during the winter preceding the minister’s arrival, and 
the governor had sent to Plymouth for the professional help of 
Dr. Samuel Fuller, a deacon of the Plymouth church. With him 
came more definite acquaintance with the Plymouth way and the 
removal of much prejudice; so much so that Endicott acknowl- 
edged, in a letter to Bradford, that he recognized that the outward 





1See Young, Chronicles . . . of Mass., pp. 65, 96, 99, 134, 135, 142-144, 207-212. Hub- 
bard, pp. 112, 113. Felt, Annals of Salem, 2d ed., Salem, 1845, I: 510-513. 

2 Francis Bright, it would appear, quarrelled with the rest of the company before he had been 
long with them. He soon left Salem, and after a little time in Charlestown, returned to England 
in August, 1630. The exact cause of his disagreement we do not know; but we may conjecture that 
he was more of a conformist than either Higginson or Skelton, and failed to agree with them re- 
garding church discipline. Hubbard, pp. 112, 113, asserts this to be a fact, and quotes with appro- 
bation a passage of much obscurity from Johnson’s Wonder-working Providence, London, 1654, 
p. 20 (reprinted by W. F. Poole, Andover, 1867). But the Company state in a letter to Endicott, 
April 17, 1629, that the ministers had ‘‘ declared themselves to us to be of one judgment, and to be 
fully agreed on the manner how to exercise their ministry.’’ (Young, Chron. . . . Mass., p. 160.) 

3 Francis Higginson, the teacher of the Salem church, was born in 1588, graduated at Cam- 
bridge, A.B. in 1609-10, and A.M. in 1613. He then became minister at Claybrooke, a parish of Lei- 
cester; but while there the influence of Thomas Hooker, afterwards of Hartford, and others, turned 
his Puritan inclinations into non-conformity. Like many other Puritans, he was silenced; but his 
friends employed him as a ‘‘lecturer.’’ While still at Leicester he was engaged to go to Salem. 
Here he arrived June 29, 1629; and was ordained on July 20, following. He died August 6, 1630. 
His life is treated in Mather, Magmadia, ed. 1853-5, 1: 354-366; Bentley, Description and Hist. of 
Salem, in 1 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., V1; Eliot, Biog. Dict. . . . of the Hirst Settlers . . . im 
NV. £., Boston, 1809, pp. 248-253; Brook, Lives of the Puritans, I1: 369-375; Young, Chron. 
, Mass., p. 317; Felt,in NV. 2. Hist. and Genealogical Register, V1: 105-127 (1852); Sprague, 
Annals of the Am. Pulpit, New York, 1857, 1: 6-10; White, V. £. Congregationalism, pp. 283, 
284; Appleton’s Cyclop. Am. Biog., 11: 198; T. W. Higginson, Life of Francis Higginson, 
New York, 1801. 

Samuel Skelton, the pastor of the Salem church, is less well known than Higginson. He 
was graduated at Cambridge, A.B. in 1611, and A.M. in 1615. He then probably settled in Dorset- 
shire (though Mather, Magnadia, ed. 1855, 1: 68, says Lincolnshire). Endicott had known him 
and profited by his ministry in England. He was ordained over the Salem church on the same day 
as Higginson. He died Aug. 2, 1634. See Brook’s Zzves, III: 520; Bentley, as cited in previous 
note; Young, Chron, . . . Mass., pp. 142, 143; White, WV. &. Cong., pp. 284, 285. 

4Young, /é¢d, pp. 151, 152. His passage was granted before the Company understood his 
Separatist tendencies. He soon went from Salem to Nantasket, and thence to Plymouth, where he 
became pastor of the church, but not meeting with entire success in the work, he resigned in 1636. 
He died in Boston in 1662. See also Bradford, Azst. Plym. Plant., pp. 263, 278, 351. 


THE SALEM CHURCH 103 


form of God’s worship, as observed at Plymouth, and explained by 
Fuller, was the same that he had himself long believed to be the 
true method.’ The miles of ocean between Salem and England 
made the separation from the English Establishment a practical 
fact, whatever the theory might be; and the exigencies of life in 
a new settlement, where so much had to be created anew, brought 
out the real unity of belief regarding Scriptural doctrine and polity 
which had always characterized Puritans and Separatists. So it 
came about that, not long after Higginson and Skelton had landed, 
Endicott appointed a day for the choice of pastor and teacher, and 
in spite of the fact that both were ministers of the Church of Eng- 
land, Skelton and Higginson were chosen and ordained to their 
new work. We are fortunately in possession of a graphic and ab- 
solutely contemporary account of these events, from the pen of 
one who was afterward a deacon in the Salem church, and written 
to Bradford at Plymouth:? 


‘St: I make bould to trouble you with a few lines, for to certifie you how it 
hath pleased God to deale with us, since you heard from us. How, notwithstanding 
all opposition that hath been hear, & els wher, it hath pleased God to lay a founda- 
tion, the which I hope is agreeable to his word in every thing. The 20. of July, it 
pleased y® Lord to move y® hart of our Gov’ to set it aparte for a solemne day of 
humilliation, for y® choyce of a pastor & teacher. The former parte of y® day being 
spente in praier & teaching, the later parte aboute y® election, which was after this 
maner. The persons thought on (who had been ministers in England) were de- 
manded concerning their callings; they acknowledged ther was a towfould calling, 
the one an inward calling, when y® Lord moved y® harte of a man to take y* calling 
upon him, and fitted him with guiftes for y® same; the second was an outward call- 
ing, which was from y® people, when a company of beleevers are joyned togither in 
covenante, to walke togither in all y® ways of God, and every member (being men) 
are to have a free voyce in y® choyce of their officers, &c. Now, we being per- 
swaded that these 2. men were so quallified, as y® apostle speaks to Timothy, wher 
he saith, A bishop must be blamles, sober, apte to teach, &c., I thinke I may say, 
as y® eunuch said unto Philip, What should let from being baptised, seeing ther was 
water? and he beleeved. So these 2. servants of God, clearing all things by their 
answers, (and being thus fitted,) we saw noe reason but we might freely give our 
voyces for their election, after this triall. [Their choice was after this manner: 
every fit member wrote, in a note,* his name whom the Lord moved him to think 





1 Letter in Bradford, Hzst. Plym. Plant., pp. 264, 265. See also Dexter, Cong. as seen, pp. 
414-420. 

2 Letter in Bradford, Hist. Plym. Plant., pp. 265, 266, and Bradford’s Letter-Book, z Cod?. 
Mass. Hist. Soc., 111: 67, 68. Gott had spent the winter of 1628-9 in Salem. 

3On the possibly Dutch derivation of this system of voting,—the first use of the written 
ballot in America,—see Douglas Campbell, The Puritan in England, Holland, and America, 
New York, 1892, IT: 438. 


104 CREED DEVELOPMENT AT SALEM 


was fit for a pastor, and so likewise, whom they would have for teacher ; so the most 
voice was for Mr. Skelton to be Pastor, and Mr. Higginson to be Teacher;!] So 
Mr’. Skelton was chosen pastor and Mr. Higgison to be teacher;? and they accept- 
ing y® choyce, M'. Higgison, with 3. or 4. of y® gravest members of y® church, laid 
their hands on Mr’. Skelton, using prayer therwith. This being done, ther was 
imposission of hands on M". Higgison also. [Then there was proceeding in election 
of elders and deacons, but they were only named, and laying on of hands deferred, 
to see if it pleased God to send us more able men over;*] And since that time, 
Thursday (being, as I take it, y® 6.4 of August) is appoynted for another day of hu- 
milliation, for y°> choyce of elders & deacons, & ordaining of them. 

And now, good S', I hope y* you & y® rest of Gods people (who are aquainted 
with the ways of God) with you, will say that hear was a right foundation layed, and 
that these 2. blessed servants of y® Lord came in at y® dore, and not at y® window. 
Thus I have made bould to trouble you with these few lines, desiring you to remem- 
ber us, &c. And so rest, 

At your service in what I may, 
Salem, July 30. 1629. CHARLES GOTT.” 


The transaction thus narrated seems to be plain. Higginson 
and Skelton were ministers duly engaged by the Company in 
England to assume the spiritual charge of the Salem settlement. 
Gov. Endicott, as representative of the Company, might properly 
have been expected to welcome them and aid them in beginning 
their work. But he, and the majority of those who had wintered 
with him at Salem, had come to the conclusion that the Plymouth 
method of ordering the church-estate was the right one; and 
hence the governor appointed a day for some at least of the colo- 
nists to vote for pastor, teacher, and other officers. But here 
a difficulty appears. The uniform, representation of the later 
writers is that the church in Salem was not formed till August 
6,° and that its covenant was prepared by Mr. Higginson at the 
request of some of the members about to be. Yet the absolutely 
contemporary letter of Gott speaks three times of ‘‘ members” 


in a way which certainly seems to imply that a covenant had 


1 This statement is omitted in the letter as given in Bradford's W7story, but is contained in 
the copy in Bradford’s Letter Book, 7 Cod?. Mass. Hist. Soc., 111 : 67, 68. 

2 Letter Book copy omits this clause. 

3 In Letter Book, but not in History. 

4 Letter Book says 5. An error, for the 6 Aug., 1629, was Thursday. 

5 Letter Book inserts /wd2. A number of minor variations between the two copies I have 
left unnoticed. 

° This opinion is first put on record by John Higginson, himself present as a 13-year-old boy 
at the ordination of his father, on the title page of his brief Dzrect/on printed in 1665; Morton, 
Memoriall, 1669, pp. 73-76 (Davis ed., pp. 145, 146) gives an extended account. Hubbard (writing 
not far from 1680), pp. 116-120, gives many details chiefly drawn from Morton. Mather, Wagnadia, 
ed. 1853-5, pp. 70-72, has a brief narrative. 


WHEN WAS THE SALEM CHURCH FORMED IO5 


been entered into at some time previous to July 20. The state- 
ment that the votes were cast by “every fit member” would 
seem to render untenable the natural supposition that the elec- 
tion on July 20 was by all the colonists, while the ordination of 
Sidtecdayeiswexpressiy declared to, have been, byaengeoty4: of y° 
gravest members of y® church.” And the letter which records 
these events was written, it will be remembered, a week before 
the supposed gathering of the church on August 6. Hence, in 
spite of the circumstantial accounts of later historians, the earli- 
est of whom wrote nearly forty years after the events he de- 
scribes, we are forced to the conclusion that there was some sort 
of covenanted church organization at Salem, previous to July 20, 
1629, and that it was this church, and not the colonists as a 
whole,’ that chose Higginson and Skelton on that day. At the same 
time much new material was brought into the religious life of 
the colony by the influx of emigrants in June and July of that 
year ; and it may well have been that the existing covenant was 
submitted to Higginson for approval or revision, and that the 
6th of August saw, in addition to the ordination of ruling elders 
and deacons, the acceptance of the covenant by a number of the 
recently arrived emigrants, who now became members of the 
church. It can hardly be doubted, too, that on August 6, the 
Plymouth church, in the persons of Gov. Bradford and other 
representatives, extended the hand of fellowship to their new 
brethren of Salem.” But that the church in Salem was first formed 





1 Hubbard, General History, p. 119; and Gov. Hutchinson, H7st. Colony of Mass. Bay, 
London, 1765, I: 10-12, represent the choice distinctly as the work of the colonists before the 
formation of the church. Palfrey, Hzst. N. £., I: 295, is more guarded, but implies the same 
thing. Webber and Nevins, Old Naumkeag, p. 11, speak of this assembly of July 20, as a “town 
meeting’’; Bacon, Genesis N. E. Chs., pp. 472-475, elaborates this view at length. On the other 
hand, Punchard, W7st. Cong., [V : 12-31, is in substantial accord with the view taken by the writer ; 
but I am not able to follow him in all particulars. The observations of Rev. Mr. Willson, A7st. of 
Essex County, pp. 22, 23, are also of value. 

2 The statement in Morton’s Memorial/, p. 75, is too circumstantial to be without a sub- 
stantial basis of truth: ‘‘Mr. Bradford . . . . and some others with him, coming by Sea, 
were hindered by cross winds that they could not be there at the beginning of the day, but they 
came into the Assembly afterward, and gave them the right hand of fellowship,” though Brad- 
ford himself makes no mention of it in his Wzst, Plywe. Plant. Hubbard, p. 119, repeats the story. 
It seems hardly likely, in spite of the intimations of Morton and Hubbard, that the Saftem church 
formally invited the Plymouth church to assist them. Had such been the case some allusion 
ought to be found in Gott’s letter. It is more probable that, on receipt of Gott’s letter, Bradford 
and others started on their own motion to welcome the new church. 


8 


106 CREED DEVELOPMENT AT SALEM 


on August 6, seems certainly an error. Yet, however originating, 
the fact is of prime importance that the first Puritan church on 
New England soil was formed on the Congregational model. The 
example thus set was one easy to follow. 

The Salem covenant of 1629 was a single sentence, embracing 
a simple promise to walk in the ways of the Lord. In brevity and 
contents it resembles other covenants of the period which have come 
down to us.'' From this brevity and simplicity it has been errone- 
ously concluded that our New England churches, in their early 
state, applied no doctrinal tests as a condition of membership.” No 
opinion could be farther from the truth. The causes which led our 
ancestors to America related to church polity rather than to doc- 
trinal views ; and hence the public formule of our churches on this 
side of the water concern themselves at first with matters of organ- 
ization rather than with points of faith.* This agreement with the 
Puritan-Calvinistic portion of the English establishment was so 
entire that their doctrinal position could be taken for granted, and 
was not therefore at first formulated. But if the doctrinal beliefs 
of the churches as a whole needed no general statement, the case 
was far different with the individual applicants for church-member- 
ship. They had to submit to a searching private examination by 
the elders of the church both as to “their £now/ledge in the princi- 
ples of religion, & of their experience in the wayes of grace, and of 

1 Some illustrations will be given in connection with the text of this covenant. 

2 This matter has given rise to a considerable literature, much of it cast in a controversial 
mould. The following articles, on one side or the other, may be cited as likely to prove of 
value to the student: Cummings, Dict. of Cong. Usages and Principles, Boston, 1855, Art. 
Creeds, pp. 131-139; Bacon, Ancient Waymarks, New Haven, 1853; Gilman, Confessions of 
Fatth, in Cong. Quarterly, 1V: 179-191 (April, 1862); Mead, d New Declaration of Faith: Is tt 
Destrable, etc., Minutes of National Council Cong. Chs., 1880, pp. 144-173; Dexter, A Serzous 
Misconception, in Congregationalist for Jan. 2, 1890; Calkins, Creeds as Tests of Church Mem- 
bership, in Andover Review, XII]: 237-255 (Mch., 1890); Dexter, Did the early-Churches of 
New England Require assent toa Ciel? in Magazine of Christian Literature, 11: 129-138 
(June, 1890). Of less value are Thompson, Formation of Creeds, New Englander, 1V: 265-274 
(Apl. 1846); Shedd, Congregationalism and Symbolism, Bibl. Sacra, XV: 661-690 (July, 1858); 
Pond, Church Creeds, Bibl. Sacra, XXXIX: 538-546 (July, 1872). 

3 Compare the opening paragraphs of the preface to the Cambridge Platform, and the pre- 
face to the Confession of 1680, both of which will be found on a later page. Even when nearly a 
century had elapsed since the foundation of our churches, Cotton Mather was able to declare (Ratio 

Discipline, Boston, 1726, p. 5): ‘* The Doctrinal Articles of the Church of England, also, are 
more universally held and preached in the Churches of New-ELxgZand, than in any Nation 


It is well known, that the Points peculiar to the Churches of Mew-England, are those of cheie 
Church Discipline.” 


CREED-TESTS IN NEW ENGLAND 107 


their godly conversation amongst men.’* And the evidence is ample 
that this “knowledge” implied familiarity with and assent to the 
main doctrines of the Scripture as expounded by the Calvinism of 
the period. Once accepted by the elders, the candidate had to 
render an account to the church, dwelling largely, of course, on ex- 
perience, but not wholly omitting doctrine.” In case of men this 
relation was usually oral; the women frequently rendered it by 
means of a written statement, and men sometimes exercised the 
same privilege.* But so far were these tests from being matters of 
form, that even in the early days of the first generation of our New 
England settlers the decided majority of the colonists were unable 
to show sufficient evidence of faith and experience to enter into 
church relationship.* 

But circumstances soon compelled our New England churches 
to bear a more public testimony to their corporate and collective 
faith. There were troubles at home, notably in the doctrinal dis- 


1Cotton, Way of the Churches, London, 1645, p. 54. See Cotton’s ‘‘ Twelve Fundamental 
Articles of Christian Religion : the Denial whereof . . . makesamanan Heretick.’’ Tract published 
in 1713. These articles are summed up by Dexter in Magazine of Christ. Literature, 11: 135; and 
are given in more detail by Lechford, Plazu Dealing, London, 1642, pp. 9, 10 (Trumbull’s reprint, 
Boston, 1867, pp. 25-28). Lechford declares them to be from a sermon preached in Oct., 1640. 

2 Compare on these proceedings, Lechford, as cited, pp. 4-11 (Trumbull’s reprint, 18-29) ; 
Cotton, as cited, 54-65; Weld, Brief Narration of the Practices of the Chs. tin N, E., London, 
1645 (reprinted in Cong. Quarterly, XVII: 253-271, see pp. 255, 261, 262). The method em- 
ployed at Boston is shown bythe account of the admission of Rev. John Cotton, and his wife, in 
1633, Winthrop, “7st. V. Z. (Journaz), Savage’s ed., 1853, I: 130-132. At the Hartford church, 
under Hooker, fitness for membership was shown by public question and answer, rather than by re- 
lation, Mather, Wagunadia, ed. 1853-5, I1: 68. The method of the Salem church in 1661 is givenin 
its records, White, VV. £. Cozg., p. 50. 

3 A considerable number of these relations have come down to our own day. Fifty, dating 
from the ministry of Thos. Shepard of Cambridge, and most of them previous to 1640, are still in ex- 
istence. (See Paige, History af Cambridge, Boston, 1877, pp. 252, 253, where a specimen is given.) 
More than 20 exist in the records of the Wenham church under John Fiske, 1644-1656, and are of a 
strongly doctrinal character. (See Dexter, Sertous Misconception in Congregationalist, Jan. 2, 
1890.) Other specimens, dating from a much later period when the severity of the test had been 
considerably relaxed, may be found in Hill, Hist. of Old South Church, Boston, 1890, I: 309 (of 
1744); andin Gilman, A xczZent Confessions of Faith, in Cong. Quarterly, X1: 516-527 (of 1752-58). 

4 Lechford, Plain Dealing, p. 73: ‘‘ Againe, here is required such confessions, and profes- 
sions, both in private and publique, both of men and women, before they be admitted, that three 
parts of the people of the Country remaine out of the Church.’’ Dr. Trumbull has illustrated this 
statement with valuable notes (Reprint, p. 151). Cotton, Way of the Congregational Churches 
Cleared, London, 1648, pp. 71,72, denied the accuracy of Lechford’s statement; but in Richard 
Mather’s reply to the first of the XXXII Questions propounded by English Puritans to New Eng- 
land divines, a reply written in 1639, and published at London in 1643 under the title Church-Gov- 
ernment and Church-Covenant Discussed, pp. 7, 8, it is said: ‘‘ Whether is the greater number, 
those that are admitted hereunto [church-communion], or those that are not we cannot certainly 
tell? But . . . we may truely say, that for the heads of Families, those that are admitted are 
farre more in number then the other.”’ 


108 CREED DEVELOPMENT AT SALEM 


turbances engendered by Mrs. Hutchinson and afterwards by the 
Quakers ; and there were doubts cast upon the orthodoxy of our 
churches by their enemies in England.’ As similar criticisms had 
led the London-Amsterdam church to put forth its doctrinal 
statement in 1596 and 1598, so our New England churches at last 
felt constrained to make the doctrinal positions which they had 
held from the beginning more evident to the world. We there- 
fore find traces of the use, soon after 1640, of what we would 
now call confessions of faith by a few churches ;* and in 1648 we 
see the Westminster Assembly’s Confession heartily endorsed by 
the representatives of all our churches as a substantially adequate 
doctrinal expression.* Of course when such standards were rec- 
ognized as presenting the views of a church, or of the whole of 
the churches, it would be natural to ask the assent of the candi- 
date thereto, in addition to his relation, or occasionally instead 
of his relation. But the adoption of such standards did not in- 
troduce the doctrinal test as a precedent to church-membership, 
that had existed from the beginning. 

A good illustration of this general evolution of definite written 
creed statement is afforded by the Salem church, whose brief cove- 
nant of 1629 has just been considered. The years following its 
adoption were stormy seasons in that church’s history. Higginson 
died in 1630, Skelton followed him in 1634; and for a brief time 
in 1631, and again from 1633 onward Skelton had been assisted 
by the famous and exceedingly erratic Roger Williams.* On 


1 See preface to Cambridge Platform, later in this volume, regarding such criticisms. 

2 John Fiske’s church at Wenham records, among other similar entries, the following: 
‘*8 Nov. 1644: Voted, that a consent & assent should be required #0 ye profession of faith of ye 
church, and that y8 Confession should be read distinctly to them [candidates] & time given them 
to returne y* answer.’ ‘28 Seff, 1645: Geo. Norton gave his assent to Con/ess’n of faith, & y*# 
covt administred to him.’? Quoted by Dexter in Magazine Chris. Lit., 11: 137 (June, 1890). See 
also the strongly doctrinal creed-covenant of the Windsor, Conn., church, of 1647, which may be 
found on a later page of this volume. 

3 See preface to Cambridge Platform, later in this volume. 

4 The story of Roger Williams has been well told by Dexter, As to Roger Williams, Boston 
[1876],— an indispensable monograph for any who would know the truth regarding this much mis- 
represented man. The student will do well also to consult the chapter on Roger Williams in G. E. 
Ellis, Purztan Age . . tn . . Mass., Boston, 1888, pp. 267-299; and an article by the same 
writer in Winsor’s Wemorzal Hist. of Boston, Boston, 1882, 1: 171,172; to which Dr. Winsor has 
added an extensive note on the bibliography of the subject, /ézd., 172,173. Williams was not at this 
time a Baptist, nor did he become so before his ‘‘banishment.’’ It is possible, though not certain, 
that he was ordained at Salem in 1631. In that year he began ministerial work in Plymouth and 
remained there till 1633, when he went back to Salem. Dexter, as cited, pp. 5, 7, 26. 


ROGER WILLIAMS AT SALEM 109 


Skelton’s death, the Salem people asked Williams to be their 
pastor, though he had already made himself obnoxious to the 
government of the Company by his denunciations of the patent 
as no valid title, and his attack on the character of the king 
and the churches of England.’ Circumstances into which we 
need not enter here in further detail led to the cognizance of 
Williams’s doings by the Court, and a considerably prolonged 
controversy, in which the government appears to have acted with 
a good degree of forbearance. While this controversy was in 
progress a petition relative to some lands claimed by the Salem 
people was presented to the Court, and by it laid on the table 
pending the adjustment of the disputes already existing between 
it and Williams, who had the support of his church at Salem. 
This act of the Court roused Williams’s anger, and on his insist- 
ance the Salem church called on the other churches of the col- 
ony to discipline such of their members as had voted as magis- 
trates in the General Court on the land question.” The time 
was most unwise for such an attack, even if far more justifiable 
than it was, as the enemies of the colony in England were ac- 
tively at work and had already taken steps looking toward the 
immediate destruction of the legal existence of the Massachusetts 
Company.’ In this crisis the government needed the help of all 
loyal men. And it is, therefore, not surprising that the Salem 
church, which had been persuaded by its young pastor to cen- 
sure the officers of the imperilled Company, soon began to yield 
to the reasonable arguments of the other churches and feel a 
degree of shame for what they had done.* Seeing that he no 
longer had the support of his people, Williams, with his usual 
headstrongness, sent a letter to his flock, on August 16, 1635, an- 
nouncing that he had cast off all communion with the churches 
of the Bay as false and unclean; and that he would have noth- 
ing more to do with the people of Salem unless they would join 
him in cutting loose from all the other churches of the colony.’ 
The good sense of the church prevailed, and as a whole they did 





1 Dexter, /ézd., 26-28. 2 Jbid., 38-40. 3 Jbzd., 20-23. 
4 Tbid., 43. 5 Thid., 43-45. 


IIo CREED DEVELOPMENT AT SALEM 


not heed him; but, as is usual in such cases, it cost heart rnings 
and sore divisions, and some went off to the new service which 
Williams set up. But now the Court, before which his case had 
some time been pending, after a considerable hearing in which 
it was aided by the advice of the most prominent ministers 
then in New England, ordered him out of its jurisdiction, by 
a sentence passed October 9, 1635; and based on his attacks on 
the authority of the magistrates, and his persistence in defam- 
ing them and the churches of which they were members, in spite 
of all warnings to desist.” His settlement of Providence, his 
adoption of Baptist views while there, and his after changes are 
aside from the purpose of the present narrative. 

Enough has been said to show that when Williams left the 
Salem plantation, in January, 1636,* the church must have been in 
a divided and distracted state.* But it was at last provided with 
a pastor in the person of the able, versatile, and distinguished 
Hugh Peter,’ who was settled at Salem December 21, 1636. Under 





1 Jé7d., 46-60. 2 Jé¢d., 65 and following. 3 Jétd., 61, 62. 


4 Compare also, as illustrative of the state of the church after Williams left, Winthrop, W7st¢. 
of N. E. (Journad), 2d ed., Boston, 1853, 1: 221. 


5 Hugh Peter was one of the most picturesque characters among the early ministry of New 
England. Born in 1599, in Cornwall, he studied at Cambridge, graduating A.M. in 1622. Contact 
with such eminent Puritans as Thomas Hooker and John Davenport led him to abandon his early 
profligacy and devote himself to the ministry. Admitted to Episcopal orders, he preached with 
much success at St. Sepulcre’s, London; but his growing Puritanism led to his association with the: 
leaders of the Massachusetts Company, of which he was one of the early members. Being silenced 
by Laud in London, he went to Rotterdam in 1629, and was settled over the church there, with Dr. 
William Ames as colleague. ‘The tongue of slander has attacked his moral character while in Lon-. 
don, but seemingly with no cause save enmity. Here in Holland he remained till the English 
authorities moved the Dutch to render his position insecure. He therefore came to New England, 
arriving Oct. 6, 1635; and was from the first a man of prominence. After visiting all the new 
towns of the infant colony, he settled at Salem. Here his work was universally beneficial. Under 
his ministry more were added to the church in five years than in eighteen under his successor. The 
wounds in the church were healed. But Peter had an aptitude for the practical side of life. He 
did much to develop the manufactures of Salem, such as salt, glass, ship-building, and hemp rais- 
ing. He showed great success in promoting trade; so that at the earnest solicitation of the govern- 
ment, and with much reluctance on the part of his people, he was persuaded to go to England, 
Aug. 3, 1641, as one of the agents for the Colony. His connection with the Salem church was 
ended. Arrived in England just as the civil conflict was about to begin, his talents soon secured. 
him prominence on the Puritan side. He almost immediately became secretary to Cromwell, and 
then a popular chaplain in the army. His fame was soon that of one of the most effective of the 
king’s opponents. In April, 1646, he preached before the Houses of Parliament, a body which 
estimated his general services to the cause to be worthy of a pension. His work as army chaplain. 
took him with Cromwell’s expedition to Ireland in 1649. Parliament then, 1651, employed him on. 
a commission to revise the laws. 1654 saw him one of the ¢xyers of candidates for ministerial ap- 
pointments. By 1658 Peter was chaplain to the garrison of Dunkirk. At the Restoration the hatred 
of the royalist party against Peter showed its intensity. Absurd rumors were circulated, such as, 
that he was the actual executioner of Charles I. ; he was charged with high treason for having had. 


THE COVENANT OF 1636 Tat 


him the church enjoyed a degree of growth, unity, and prosperity 
in marked contrast to its distraction under Williams. And as one 
of the earliest steps toward this desirable result, probably at 
Peter’s ordination, the covenant of 1629 was renewed, and very 
‘much enlarged by the addition of nine specific articles of promise, 
several of which were more or less directly occasioned by the late 
disturbances. In view of what we have seen, it is no wonder that 
the members of the church felt it incumbent upon them to pledge 
themselves “to walke with our brethren and sisters . . . avoyd- 
ing all jelousies, suspitions, backbyteings, censurings, provoakings, 


py 


secrete risings of spirite against them. Nor was it unnatural 
that their repentance for their opposition to the other churches 
and the magistrates of the colony should find expression in a 
promise to act “noe way sleighting our sister Churches, but use- 


* and “to carrye our selves in 


ing theire Counsell as need shalbe”’; 
all lawfull obedience, to those that are over us, in Church or Com- 
monweale.’’* ‘Truly it is the sense of contrition for disagreement 
and ill-feeling that finds expression in this enlarged and particu- 
larized pledge of fellowship. 

But other changes brought addition also to the written sym- 
bols of the Salem church. Their pastor, Peter, ended his ministry 
in 1641; and was succeeded, in the full duties of ministerial office, 
by one who, since March, 1640, had been his colleague as teacher, 
Edward Norris.* It was while Norris was fulfilling a respected 
but not very eventful ministry that the new sect of the Quakers 
first made their appearance in Salem, in 1656.° At this time they 
an active share in the king’s death. On Oct. 16, 1660, he was executed with all the barbarous cir- 


cumstances then attendant upon the punishment for treason. Among the many sources of inform- 
ation, or of defamation, the following may be cited: Harris, Historical and Critical Account of 


the Lives . . . of James lI. and Charles /., etc. New ed. London, 1814, I: ix-li; Bentley, 
Descrip. Salem, in r Coll. Mass, Hist. Soc., V1: 250-254; Eliot, Biog. Dict. . . . of the First 
Settlers . . . in N. £., Boston, 1809, pp. 372-377; Brook, Lives, III: 350-369; Young, Chroz. 


Mass., pp. 134, 135; Felt, Memotr, in N. &. Hist. and Genealogical Register, V: 9-20, 
231-238, 275-204, 415-439 (with portrait), (1851 and separately same year); Felt, Acclestastical Hist, 
NV. £., Boston, 1855, 1: 228, 229, 267, 426, 434-436; Sprague, Azwzals Am. Pulpit, 1: 70-75; Pal- 
frey, Hist. N. E., 1: 582-584, Il: 426-428; White, V. £. Cong., 287, 288; Appleton’s Cyclop, Am. 
Bzog., 1V: 741, 742. 

1 Art. 3. 2 Art. 6. pie ab 

4See White, V. £. Congregationalism, pp. 289, 290. 

5 Bentley, z Coll. Mass, Hist. Soc., V1: 255, says 1657; but Felt, Axnxals of Salenz, 2d ed., 
Salem, 1849, II: 580, puts the beginnings of prosecution of Quakers in Salem in July, 1656, 


I1t2 CREED DEVELOPMENT AT SALEM 


were far from being the staid and law-abiding citizens who, in our 
own day, have made the name of Quaker synonymous with honesty, 
piety, and good order; and if we are sometimes tempted to think 
that the fathers dealt out hard measure to them, it is well to re- 
member that the provocation was great and such as would attract 
the speedy notice of law in our own century.’ It was while these 
new elements of disturbance were turmoiling the Salem community 
that Norris died, December 23, 1659. A few months earlier had 
seen the almost chance beginning of the work of his successor, 
John Higginson,? the son of the first teacher, and the connecting 
link between the founders of New England and the historians at 
the close of the seventeenth century.* Higginson’s settlement fol- 
lowed more than a year of ministerial supply, August 29, 1660. 
The influence of the new ministry speedily showed itself in the 
toning up of the church’s affairs. The Quaker disturbances con- 
tinued,* and other questions, especially the great discussion regard- 
ing the proper subjects of baptism, occupied men’s minds.* Hig- 
ginson evidently saw the need of more careful doctrinal instruction, 


and therefore, less than a month after his ordination,°® and probably 





1Compare, among many sources of information regarding the New England Quakers, the 
following: Palfrey, 7st. V. £., 11: 452-485; Dexter, As to Roger Williams, pp. 124-141, with cita- 
tions from Quaker documents and historians. Ellis, 7re Puritan Age . .. in... Mass., 
Boston, 1888, pp. 408-491. 


2 John Higginson was born in August, 1616, in England, from which land his parents did not 
remove till 1629. He appears to have been an early member of the Salem church, uniting with it 
during the year of his arrival. His father dying in 1630, John was aided by the ministers and 
magistrates toward an education. By April, 1636, before he was 20, he was chaplain at the Fort at 
Saybrook, Conn.; a post which he occupied about four years. In 1637 he was one of the scribes at 
the Hutchinson Synod. By 1641 he was a teacher in Hartford and a student under Thomas 
Hooker. He thence removed to Guilford, Conn., in 1643, and was one of the prominent members 
of the church there and assistant to its pastor, Henry Whitfield. Here he remained, in sole pastoral 
service after 1651, till 1659, when he started for England. On his voyage the vessel was forced to 
put into Salem. Here he was asked to preach, and agreed to remain a year — March or April, 1650. 
In March, 1660, he was called to a permanent settlement, and was ordained August 29 of that year, 
by the hands of two deacons and a brother of the church’s fellowship, though in the presence of 
the ministers and representatives of the neighbor-churches. Here he continued as minister till his 
death, Dec. 9, 1708, 92 years of age. His good sense, and his familiarity with the elder generation, 
gave him much weight throughout the colony. See Bentley, Desc. of Salem, 1 Coll. Mass. Hist. 
Soc., VI: 259-272; Felt, Annals of Salem, passim, Felt, Eccles. Hist. New England, 1: 253, 
312, 517, 519-521, IL: 218, 224; Sprague, Aunals of the Am. Pulpit, 1: 91-93; White, V. Z£. Cong., 
45-96, 290-202. 

3 As illustrative, see his Attestation to the Magunalia, ed. 1853-5, I: 13-18. 

4 See Felt, A xnals of Salem, 2d ed., I1: 580-587, for instances between 1656 and 1669. 

5 See later in this volume, in connection with the Synod of 1662 (Chapter XI). 


6 Sept. ro, 1660. Church records in White, VV. 2. Cong., p. 47. 


THE QUAKER CLAUSE OF 1661 Vis 


at his motion, the church voted “that Mr. Cotton’s Catechism’ be 
used in their families in teaching their children in order to public 
catechising in the congregation.” 

Soon after the beginning of this teaching, the brethren were 
induced not only solemnly to renew their former covenant but to 
add to the nine articles, which had come down from Peter’s day,a 
tenth, pledging the members “to take heed and beware of the 
leaven of the doctrine of the Quakers.”’? Thus, by degrees, and 
chiefly owing to the rise of errors in faith or practice in the church 
itself, the single sentence of 1629 became expanded into a fairly 
elaborate and particularized rule. 

Mr. Higginson was evidently a believer in the value of written 
creeds, and desirous of having the customs of the church which 
had been handed down from the beginning put in documentary 
form. At the same time he was a warm advocate, in company 
with many of the best men in New England at that day, of what is 
known as the half-way covenant,--a system which to his mind, as 
to that of many others, was designed to give the church a larger 
hold upon its children and ultimately to bring a large portion of 
them into the enjoyment of full spiritual privilege.* But to accom- 
plish these results Higginson clearly felt that improved instruction 
by parents at home, and a careful examination of all applicants for 
church membership by the elders, were needed.* All these consid- 
erations had increased force when the half-way principles, some of 
which the church had already adopted, were made part of the 
recognized ecclesiastical usage of the colony by the Synod of 1662, 


17, ¢., Cotton’s Milk for Babes, London, 1646, long a popular catechism in New England. 
A heliotype copy of the title-page may be found in Ellis, Wzst. irst Ch. 7x Boston, Boston, 1881, 
between pp. 36, 37. 


2 This occurred March 6, 1661. See page 118 of this chapter. 


3 That this view of the probable effects of the half-way covenant system, erroneous as it may 
seem to us, was held by Higginson, is clear from his record of the ‘‘ propositions concerning the 
state of the children of members”’ agreed upon by the church Sept. 9, 1661; and his speech urging 
the adoption of the practices recommended by the Synod of 1662, delivered in July, 1665 ; see Church 
records, in White, V. £. Cong., pp. 49, 50, 60, 61. 


4 The ‘‘ propositions”’’ of 1661 declare the belief of the Salem church in the membership of all 
baptized children in the covenant fellowship of the church, so as to be under the church’s watch 
and care. They are silent on the other great question, as to whether these covenanted children of 
the church, who have not yet made profession of personal regeneration, can claim baptism for their 
children, That further principle was adopted July 18, 1665, and put in practice on the goth. Re- 
cords, Ibid. 


I14 CREED DEVELOPMENT AT SALEM 


and fully put into practice at Salem in 1665. With these aims in 
view, therefore, we find Higginson promising the church, at a 
meeting, November 6, 1664, when the recommendations of the Sy- 
nod of 1662 were publicly read, that “he would communicate unto 
the brethren a short writing as a help for the practice of the Sy- 


nod’s propositions.” ’ 


It was not till nearly a year later, however, 
October 5, 1665, that the pastor was able to announce to the church 
that his “ writing’ was printed and ready for distribution.* The 
document has fortunately come down to our day. ‘The little pam- 
phlet bears on its face the evidence of its purpose; it 1s expressly 
declared to be A Direction for a publick Profession in the Church 
Assembly, after private examination by the Elders ; and it contains a 
creed and a covenant answering to the documents which modern 
Congregationalism would understand by those now somewhat tech- 
nical terms. ‘The phraseology of the confession of faith, modeled 
on that of the Westminster catechism, is of course Trinitarian 
and Calvinistic ; and, while there is no ground for the assertion, 
which some have made, that this creed was adopted by the church. 
in 1629,° there can certainly be no impropriety in concluding that 
the opinion which John Higginson expressed in the title of the Dz- 
reciton, thirty-six years after the formation of the church,—“ Being 
the same for Substance which was propounded to, and agreed upon 
by the Church of Salem at their beginning. the sixth of the sixth 
Moneth, 1629,"’— warrants us in holding the creed to be fairly 
representative of the type of theologic belief which the candi- 
dates for membership in the Salem church were expected to mani- 
fest to “the elders” from the beginning. As such it mayer 
true sense be taken as representative of the kind of doctrinal test 
applied to members entering this first Puritan church in New Eng- 
land during the first half century of its existence. But while this 
affirmation is doubtless warranted, too much must not be claimed 
regarding this document of 1665 itself. A careful reading of the 


church records regarding it shows that, unlike the covenants of 





1 Church records, /dzd., 59. 
2 /bid., 62. 
3 See ante, p.o5. 


THE DIRECTION OF 1665 115 


1629 and 1636, the Direction was not formally adopted by the 
church. It remained a recognized, but, in some sense, private, 
guide, and was designed primarily for the use of the candidates for 
church privileges under the half-way covenant, and for those who 
would pass from the baptized membership of the church to its full 
communion. For those not already of the church by baptism, who 
desired full membership, the older method of relation and personal 
profession was still employed.’ The steps have thus been pointed 
out by which the Salem church passed from a brief and simple 
covenant to an elaborate compact ; and to the use, if not the for- 
mal adoption, of a somewhat extended creed. ‘The process was 
not one of change of doctrine, save perhaps on the question of 
baptism as applied to the offspring of the “ children of the church.” 
It was one of increasing written definition, a definition induced by 
the rise of errors and differences of belief in the church or commu- 
nity. In this matter the story of the Salem church is typical of 


New England ecclesiastical development as a whole.’ 





1 White has pointed out, and the church records amply warrant him in the assertion, that 
‘children of the covenant’”’ since members of the church already by baptism, were admitted to full 
communion after examination by the pastor and a public confession and renewal of covenant before 
the church—éut without church vote. It is for such confession and covenanting, after examina- 
tion, that the Direction was designed. On the other hand ‘‘non-members’’ were voted into full 
communion on the old terms. An instance or two may illustrate. ‘' 1667. At a Church meeting, 4th 
of 5th month. John Gidney, Sam. Archer, jun., Jo. Peas, Martha Barten, Martha Foster, were 
presented before the Church, the Pastor expressed himself that after examination he approved of 
them as able to examine themselves, and discern the Lord’s body, they professing their consent to 
the Confession of Faith and Covenant read unto them [Z. e., the Direction of 1665], they had their 
liberty to partake of the Lord’s Supper, as other children of the Covenant formerly [z. e., since the 
full adoption of the half-way principles in 1665, White, 67]. Goodie Guppa, Eliz. Clifford, Mary 
Merit, being non-members, having been propounded a month, and no exception against them, they 
made their confession and were on the Lord’s day following received unto membership by vote of 


the Church, and by their own entering into Covenant.’”? Church records, White, 71. How this 
confession was still made, in the admission of non-members, is shown by a further entry: ‘1678, At 
a Church Meeting, March g, Sam. Eburn, [etc.] . . . theseeight . . . making their pro- 


fession of faith and repentance in their own way, some by speech, others. by writing, which was 
read for them, they were admitted to membership in this Church, by consent of the brethren, they 
engaging themselves in the Covenant.’’ /d7d., 83. 


2 The adoption of new forms and covenants by the Salem church did not stop here. Anew 
covenant ‘‘ more accomodated to our times ’’ was adopted, apparently in addition to the old cove- 
nant, April 15, 1680, in consequence of the exhortations of the ‘‘ Reforming Synod”’ of 1679. 
Church records, White, pp. 84, 85. Thetext was printed at Boston in that year (Thomas, Ast. 
Printing in America, Albany, 1874, I1: 323); and exists in a MS. copy, among the records of the 
Tabernacle Church, Salem. Thistext may be found in White, VV. Z. Conxg., pp. 186, 187, 207-209, 
in rather a disjointed form, from the Tabernacle Ch. Centennial Discourse, by Worcester, 1835, 
Appendix U; and the Salem Gazette of Apl. 6, 1854. As it is, however, largely devotional and 
penitential, and presents nothing that is new im doctrine or practice, I have thought best to omit it. 


THE SALEM SYMBOLS 


THE COVENANT OF 1629 

We Covenant with the Lord and one with an other; and doe 
bynd our selves in the presence of God, to walke together in all 
his waies, according as he is pleased to reveale himself unto us 
in his Blessed word of truth.’ 


THE ENLARGED COVENANT OF 1636” 

Gather my Saints together unto me* that have Pane a Cov- 
enant with me by sacrifyce. Psa. 50:5: 

Wee whose names are here under written, members of the 
present Church of Christ in Salem, having found by sad experi- 





1 This simplicity is characteristic of the early covenants. It seems probable that the essence 
of the covenant of the London-Amsterdam (Johnson’s) church has been preserved for us in the 
examination of Daniel Buck, scrivener, in 1593, who being inquired of as to ‘‘ what promise hee 
made when he came first to yt Societie he annswereth & sayth that he made yS Protestation: that 
he wold walke with the rest of y™ so longe as they did walke in the way of the Lorde, & so farr as 
might be warranted by the Word of God.’’ Harleian MS. 7042, communicated to me by Dr. Dex- 
ter. See also his Cong. as seen, p. 265 ; and Strype, A zzals IV. No. CXV, ed. 1824, p. 244. A sug- 
gestion as to the possible original covenant of the Mayflower church has already been made, see 
ante, p. 83. The covenant of Henry Jacobs’ church organized in 1616 in London, and the first 
Congregational church to gain a permanent foothold in that city, is thus described; they ‘‘sol- 
emnly covenanted with each other in the presence of Almighty God, to walk together in all God’s 
ways and ordinances, according as he had already revealed, or should further make them known to 
them.’’ Neal, Hist. of the Puritans, Toulmin’s ed., Bath, 1794, Il: roo. Hanbury, Wemorzals, 
I: 292,293. No covenant of the Dorchester company, whose church was organized in March 1630, at 
Plymouth, Eng., and emigrated bodily to our shores, has been preserved earlier in date than 1647 
(given later in this work). But the next in order of our New England churches, that of Boston, 
had a covenant as simple as that of Salem. (See Ch. VII of this work.) The Charlestown church, 
of Nov. 2, 1632, has the following covenant : ‘‘ Wee whose names are heer written Being by his 
most wise and good providence brought together, and desirous to vnite oT selus into one Congre- 
gation or Church, vnder ot Lord Iesus Christ our Head: In such sort as becometh all those whom 
he hath Redeemed and sanctified vnto himselfe, Doe heer sollemnly and Religeously as in his most 
holy presence, Promice and bynde of selus to walke in all of wayes according to the Rules of the 
Gospell, and in all sinceer conformity to his holy ordinances: and in mutuall Love and Respect 
each to other; so near as God shall give vs grace.’’ Photographic fac-simile in The Commeemora- 
tion of the 250th Anniversary of the First Church, Charlestown, Mass. Privately Printed, 
1882. It is evident, therefore, that in simplicity and brevity the Salem covenant conforms to the 
general custom of our earliest Congregational churches. A seeming exception is perhaps the cov- 
enant of the Watertown church of July 30, 1630 (AZagnadza, ed. 1853-5, 1: 377; Punchard, IV: 
43, 44) ; but the exception is more apparent than real, for though the form is long and descriptive, 
the content is simple. 

2 From White’s text of the copy in the church-book of 1660-1. 

3 Fiske’s copy, W7st. Coll. Essex Inst., 1-37, 38, inserts yos, i.e, those. I have not noticed 
variations in spelling between Fiske and the church-book. 

4 A favorite text, John Higginson preached on it at the renewing of this covenant in 1661. 
Ch. records, White, p. 48. 

(116) 


TEXTE, OF THE COVENANT op Be 


ence how dangerous it is to sitt loose to the Covenant wee make 
with our God: and how apt wee are to wander into by pathes, 
even to the looseing of our first aimes in entring into Church 
fellowship: Doe therefore solemnly in the presence of the Eter- 
nall God, both for our own comforts, and those which’ shall or 
maye be joyned unto us, renewe that Church Covenant we find 
this Church bound unto at theire first beginning, viz: That We 
Covenant with the Lord and one with an other; and doe bynd our 
selves in the presence of God, to walke together in all his waies, 
according as he is pleased to reveale himself unto us in his 
Blessed word of truth.” And doe more explicitely in the name 
and feare of God, profess and protest to walke as followeth through 
the power and grace of our Lord Jesus.* 

1 first wee avowe the Lord to be our God, and our selves 
his people in the truth and simplicitie of our spirits. 

2 We give our selves to the Lord Jesus Christ, and the word 
of his grace, fore the teaching, ruleing and sanctifyeing of us in 
matters of worship, and Conversation, resolveing to cleave to him 
alone for life and glorie; and oppose all contrarie wayes, can- 
nons and constitutions of men in his worship. 

3. Wee promise to walke with our brethren and sisters in this 
Congregation with all watchfullnes and tendernes, avoyding all 
jelousies, suspitions, backbyteings, censurings, provoakings, se- 
crete risings of spirite against them; but in all offences to follow 
the rule of the Lord Jesus, and to beare and forbeare, give and 
forgive as he hath taught us. | 

4 In publick or in private, we will willingly doe nothing to 
the ofence of the Church but will be willing to take advise for 
our selves and ours as ocasion shalbe presented. 

5 Wee will not in the Congregation be forward eyther to 
shew oure owne gifts or parts in speaking or scrupling, or there 
discover the fayling of oure brethren or sisters butt atend an 
orderly cale there unto; knowing how much the Lord may be 
dishonoured, and his Gospell in the profession of it, sleighted, by 
our distempers, and weaknesses in publyck. 

6 Wee bynd our selves to studdy the advancement of the 
Gospell in all truth and peace, both in regard of those that are 
within, or without, noe way sleighting our sister Churches, but 
useing theire Counsell as need shalbe: nor laying a stumbling 





1 Fiske reads who. 
2 This sentence, the original covenant of the church, ends in Fiske’s copy with a comma. 


3 Fiske reads ye helpe & poux of ye Lord Jesus. 


118 CREED DEVELOPMENT AT SALEM 


block before any, noe not the Indians, whose good we desire to 
promote, and soe to converse, aS we may avoyd the verrye ap- 
pearance of evill. 

7 We hearbye promise, to carrye our selves in all lawfull 
obedience, to those that are over us, in Church or Common- 
weale,’ knowing how well pleasing it will be to the Lord, that 
they should have incouragement in theire places, by our not 
greiveing theyre spirites through our Irregularities.* 

8 Wee resolve to approve our selves to the Lord in our 
perticular calings, shunning ydleness as the bane of any state, 
nor will wee deale hardly, or oppressingly with any, wherein we 
are the Lord’s stewards :* 

g alsoe promyseing to our best abilitie to teach our children 
and servants, the knowledg of God* and his will, that they may 
serve him also; and all this, not by any strength of our owne, 
but by the Lord Christ, whose bloud we desire may sprinckle this 
our Covenant made in his name. 





THE ANTI-QUAKER ARTICLE OF 1660-1° 


This Covenant’ was renewed by the Church ona sollemne 
day of Humiliation 6 of 1 moneth 1660." When also considering 
the power of -Temptation amongst us by reason of y* Quakers 
doctrine to the leavening of some in the place where we are and 
endangering of others, doe see cause to remember the Admoni- 
tion of our Saviour Christ to his disciples Math. 16. Take heed 
and beware of y* leaven of the doctrine of the Pharisees and doe 
judge so farre as we understand it y' y* Quakers doctrine is as 
bad or worse than that of y® Pharisees; Therefore we doe Coy- 
ennant by the help of Jesus Christ to take heed and beware of 
the leaven of the doctrine of the Quakers. 





1 Fiske reads common wealth. 

2 This is the article to which Morton refers (Wemorzald, p. 75; Davis ed, pp. 145, 146): ‘* And 
because they foresaw that this Wilderness might be looked upon as a place of Liberty, and there- 
fore might in time be troubled with erroneous spirits, therefore they did put in one Article into 
the Confession of Faith on purpose about the Duty and Power of the Magistrate in Matters of 
Religion.’ He attributes its adoption, mistakenly, to 1629 — his own work was published 40 years 
later — but it fits in admirably with the repentant spirit of the church for its actions under the lead 
of Roger Williams. See azzZe, p. 109. 

3 In Fiske’s copy this article and the following are joined in one. 

4 Fiske reads ye Lord. 

5 Fiske reads we desire should be sprinkle. This our covenant, etc. 

6 From White’s text of the copy in the church-book of 1660-1. NW. E. Cong., p. 14. 

7 J.e., the enlarged covenant of 1636, to which it is immediately appended. 


8 In modern reckoning 1661. See azte, p. 113.. The article was prepared in 1660 and ‘‘ added”’ 


TEXT OF THE DIRECTION 119 


THE DIRECTION OF 1665’ 
A 


MLR EC TION 


FOR 
Peo LLCK PROFESSION 
In the CHuRcH ASSEMBLY, after private Examination 
by the ALO L ES. 


Which Direction is taken out of the Scripture, and Points unto 
that Faith and Covenant contained in the Scripture. 


Being the same for Substance which was propounded to, and 
agreed upon by the Church of Sadem at their beginning. 
the sixth of the sixth Moneth, 1629. 





In the Preface to the Declaration of the Faith owned and professed by 


the Congregationall Churches zz England. 





The Genuine use of a Confession of Faith is, that under the 
same Form of Words they express the substance of the same 
common Salvation or unity of their Faith. Accordingly it is to 
be looked upon as a fit meanes, whereby to express that their 
Common Faith and Salvation, and not to be made use of as an 
imposition upon any.’ 

[2] VVE Beseech you Brethren to know them that labour 
among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you and to 
esteem them very highly tn love for their work sake and be at peace 
among your selves. 1 Thess, 5. 12, 13. 

Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves, 
Jor they watch for your soules, as they that must give an account, that 
they may do wt with joy and not with grief, for that is unprofitable for 
Wow etieD, 13. 17. 

Who ts that wise and faithfull steward, whom his Lord shall make 
Ruler over his houshold, to give them their portion of meat in due season, 
ike, 972. 42, 


March 6-16, 1661. Church-records, White, p. 48. The date in the text is not an error, however. 
The year was held to begin March 25, and March was therefore the first month, though its first 24 
days were held to belong to the previous year. Yet the usage in dating during the early days of 
March was not absolutely uniform, some even then would have written 1661. See Preface to 
Savage’s Winthrop’s Jourzad, 1: xi. 

1 Text from original. 


2 Savoy Declaration, ed. 1658. Preface, pp. iii, iv. 


120 CREED DEVELOPMENT AT SALEM 


One Faith, one Baptism. Eph. 4. 5. 

The Common Faith, Tit. 1. 4. 

The common Salvation. Jude Ver. 3. 

Chrest Jesus the high priest of our Profession, Heb. 3. 11. 
The profession of our Faith, Heb. ro. 22. 

One shall say Lam the Lords, Isai. 44. 5. 

flold fast the form of sound words. 2 Tim. 1. 13. 

The form of Knowledge, and of the truth, Rom. 2. 20. 

The form of Doctrine delivered unto you, Rom. 6. 17. 


ae CON LES SION OF fala 

I do believe with my heart and confess with my mouth. 

Concerning God. 
Hat there is but one only true God in three persons, the Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Ghost. each of them God, and all of © 
them one and the same Infinite, Eternall God, most Wise, Holy, 
Just, Mercifull and Blessed for ever. 
Concerning the Works of God. 

Hat this God is the Maker, Preserver, and Governour of all 
AP things according to the counsel of his own Will, and that God 
made man in his own Image, in Knowledge, Holiness and Right- 


eousness. 
Concerning the fall of Man. 


Hat Adam by transgressing the Command of God, fell from 

God and brought himself and his posterity into a state of Sin 

and death, under the Wrath and Curse of God, which I do believe 
to be my own condition by nature as well as any other. 


Concerning Jesus Christ. 


[4] 

Hat God sent his Son into the World, who for our sakes .be- 
dP came man, that he might redeem and save us by his Obedi- 
ence unto death, and that he arose from the dead, ascended unto 
Heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God, from whence he shall 
come to judge the World. 

Concerning the Holy Ghost. 

Hat God the holy Ghost hath fully revealed the Doctrine of 
Christ and will of God in the Scriptures of the Old and New 
Testament, which are the Word of God, the perfect, perpetuall and 

only Rule of our Faith and Obedience. 

Concerning the Benefits we have by Christ. 

Hat the same Spirit by Working Faith in Gods Elect, applyeth 
unto them Christ with all his Benefits of Justification, and 
Sanctification, unto Salvation, in the use of those Ordinances which 


TEX eon hHE: DIRECREON TQ] 


God hath appointed in his written word, which therefore ought to 
be observed by us until the coming of Christ. 


Concerning the Church of Christ. 
Hat all true Believers being united unto Christ as the Head, 
make up one Misticall Church which is the Body of Christ, the 
members wherof having fellowship with the Father Son and Holy- 
Ghost by Faith, and one with an other in love, doe receive here 
upon earth forgiveness of Sinnes, with the life of grace, and at the 
Resurrection of the Body, they shall receive everlasting life. Amen. 


[5] THE COVENANT: 


do heartily take and avouch this one God who is made known 
to us in the Scripture, by the Name of God the Father, and 
God the Son even Jesus Christ, and God the Holy Ghost to be my 
God, according to the tenour of the Covenant of Grace; wherein 
he hath promised to be a God to the Faithfull and their seed after 
them in their Generations, and taketh them to be his People, and 
therfore unfeignedly repenting of all my sins, I do give up myself 
wholy unto this God to believe in love, serve & Obey him sin- 
cerely and faithfully according to his written word, against all the 
temptations of the Devil, the World, and my own flesh and this 
unto the death. 
| do also consent to be a Member of this particular Church, prom- 
ising to continue stedfastly in fellowship with it, in the publick 
Worship of God, to submit to the Order Discipline and Govern- 
ment of Christ in it, and to the Ministerial teaching guidance 
and oversight of the Elders of it, and to the brotherly watch of 
Fellow Members: and all this according to Gods Word, and by the 
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ enabling me thereunto. AJ7EU. 





1 It has been pointed out, azfe, p. 115, that one of the uses of this confession and covenant 
was when a baptized child of the church wished to pass from its baptismal fellowship to its full 
communion. For such use its expressions of personal piety seem natural. But there is every reason 
to suppose, also, that this creed and covenant were employed for those who could not claim a work 
of grace sufficient to enable them to ask for full communion, but who simply ‘‘ owned the covenant”’ 
and had their children baptized. Yet New England custom sanctioned as strenuous a covenant as 
this in their cases. That used by the First Church of Hartford for ‘‘ half-way’’ members in 1696 is 
as follows: ‘‘We do solemnly in ye presence of God and this Congregation avouch God in Jesus 
Christ to be our God one God in three persons y® Father ye Son & y® Holy Ghost & yt we are by 
nature childr™ of wrath & yt our hope of Mercy with God is only thro’ y¢ righteousnesse of Jesus 
Christ apprehended by faith & we do freely give up ourselves to y® Lord to walke in communion 
with him in ye ordinances appointed in his holy word & to yield obedience to all his comands & 
submit to his governmt. & wheras to yé great dishon™ of God, Scandall of Religion & hazard of ye 
damnation of Souls, y¢ Sins of drunkenness & fornication are Prevailing amongst us we do Solemnly 
engage before God this day thro his grace faithfully and conscientiously to strive against those 
Evills and y® temptations that May lead thereto.’ Church records, G. L. Walker, Hist, First 
Ch. in Hartford, Hartford, 1884, p. 248. Like this Salem Dzrectzon the Hartford covenant was 
not formally adopted by the church, though prepared by its pastor and used by its services, Fora 
century, at Hartford, each pastor wrote his own form. 


9 


122 CREED DEVELOPMENT AT SALEM 


[6] Questions to be Answered at the Baptizing of Children, or 
the substance to be expressed by the Parents. 


Quest Doe you present and give up this child, or these children, 
unto God the Father, Sonne and Holy Ghost. to be baptized in the Faith, 
and Engaged in the Covinant of God professed by this Church? 

Quest. Doe you Sollemnly Promise in the Presence of God, that 
by the grace of Christ, you will discharge your Covinant duty towards 
your Children, soe as to bring them up in the Nurture and Admonition 
of the Lord, teaching and commanding them to keep the way of God, 
that they may be able (through the grace of Christ) to make a personall 
profession of their Faith and to own the Covinant of God themselves 
in due time, 





FINIS 





VII 


THE COVENANT OF THE CHARLESTOWN-BOS. 
TON CHURCH, 1630 


The Covenant is preserved in the Records of the First Church in Boston. 

PRINTED TEXTS 

I. Foxcroft, Observations, Historical and Practical, on the Rise and Primitive 
State of New England, Boston, 1730, p. 3.! 

II. Emerson, fistorical Sketch of the First Church in Boston, Boston, 
Tere, 11, I2- 

III. Budington, Aistory of the First Church, Charlestown, Boston, 1845, 
Dp, 2s, 14. 

IV. Drake, History and Antiquities of Boston, Boston, 1856, p. 93. 

V. Elliott, Mew England History, New York, 1857, I : 398. 

VI. R. C. Winthrop, Zife and Letters of John Winthrop, Boston, 1864-7, 
Eb 453 

VII. Waddington, Congregational History, 1567-1700, p. 269. 

VIII. Punchard, History of Congregationalism, Boston, 1880, IV : 42. 

IX. Commemoration by the First Church . . of the Completion cf 250 
years since tts foundation, Boston, 1881, p. 201. 

X. A.B. Ellis, History of the First Church in Boston, Boston, 1881, p. 3. 

XI. R. C. Winthrop, Boston Founded, in Winsor’s Memorial History of 
Boston, Boston, 1882, p. 114. 

XII. G. E. Ellis, Puritan Agein . . Massachusetts, Boston, 1888, p. 58. 


LITERATURE 

The circumstances of the adoption of this covenant are described in two con- 
temporary letters to Gov. Bradford of Plymouth, from Samuel Fuller and Edward 
Winslow, preserved in Bradford, Hzstory of Plymouth Plantation, pp. 277-279 ; 
and in Bradford’s Letter-Book, z Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., 111 : 74-76. The essential 
portions of these letters were given in abstract by Prince, Chron. Hist. of New 
England, 1 : 242-244. The facts, thus preserved, have been treated with more or 
less fullness in each of the works from which texts of the covenant have been cited. 
I will only add to the list there given, Felt, Zccles. Hist. V. £., 1: 138, 139; Pal- 
frey, Hist. N. £., 1: 316; Dexter, Congregationalism as seen, 417. Governor 
Winthrop gives no account of the adoption of this covenant, his //7story of New 
England (or Journal) having a large blank at this point; though he describes the 
election and installation of the officers of the church four weeks after (Savage’s 2d. 
ed. Boston, 1853, I : 36-39). Hubbard (Gen. Hist. V. £., ed. Boston, 1848, p. 135) 
and Mather (AZagnalia, ed. 1853-5, 1: 79) observe the same silence. 


1 Century Sermon. Thomas Foxcroft was minister of the First Church, Boston, from 1717 
to his death in 1760. 


2 William Emerson was pastor of the First Church, 1799-1811; father of Ralph Waldo 


Emerson. 
(123) 


124 THE BOSTON COVENANT, 1630 


9 the previous chapter’ the story was told of the rapid growth 
of the enterprise for Puritan colonization in New England 
under the fostering care of Rev. John White, the securing of a 
large land grant from the Plymouth Council in March, 1628, and 
the sending of Endicott to Salem as representative of the new 
company in the summer of the same year; and, finally, the grant 
of a patent by the crown to the now much enlarged body of ad- 
venturers, on March 4, 1629, organizing it into the ‘“ Governour 


3 


and Company of the Mattachusetts Bay.” The first governor of 
the corporation thus created was Matthew Cradock,’ a London 
merchant of wealth; and the evident intention was that the con- 
trol of the Company should remain in England and its authority 
be exercised through agents like Endicott. But as the tyranny 
of church and crown pressed with increasing severity upon the 
Puritans of England, men of so great prominence and in such 
numbers announced their intention of casting in their lot with 
the Company as actual settlers on the shores of New England, 
that a change of policy seemed advisable. Accordingly, on July 
28, 1629, Cradock himself proposed that the government of the 
Company be transferred to New England soil.* Decision was 
not immediately given by the Company as a whole, but the de- 
sires of a prominent body of Puritans, embracing such men as 
Winthrop, Saltonstall, Dudley, Pynchon, and Nowell, who entered 
into a mutual covenant at Cambridge, Eng., August 26, 1629, to 
emigrate to New England provided the government and patent 
should be legally carried thither, caused matters to come to a 
head ; and on August 29 the transfer was voted.® Since Cradock 
and others of the old officers of the Company could not leave 
England, they naturally resigned; and the vacant governorship 


1 See ante, p. 100. 


2 Some biographical facts regarding him may be found in Young, Chron. . . WMass., 
PP. 137, 138. 

8 Records . . of Massachusetts, Boston, 1853, I: 49. Young, Chvon. . . Mass., 
pp. 85, 86. 


4 Young, /é7d., pp. 281, 282. 
5 Records, 1:50, 51. Young, /dz¢d., pp. 86-88. Compare Palfrey, I: 301, 302, and G. E. 
Ellis, Puritan Age . . in . . Mass., pp. 46-49. 


THE PURITAN EXODUS 125 


was filled, October 20, 1629,' by the choice of John Winthrop.? 
Preparations for departure now went on apace, and hundreds of 
emigrants decided to avail themselves of the facilities afforded by 
the Company. With the opening spring of 1630 these colonists 
now began pouring across the Atlantic. First of all to leave 
England was a body organized by the influence of John White 
of Dorchester, England, and which had been joined together into 
Congregational church-estate at Plymouth, England, in March, 
1630, just before sailing, and had there chosen John Warham and 
John Maverick its ministers. Arrived in Massachusetts Bay on 
May 30 of that year, they named their new settlement Dorchester, in 
memory of their English home. These Dorchester emigrants did 
not much anticipate, either in sailing or arrival, their companions 
in the great emigration’ of 1630. Winthrop and his immediate 
company got away from English shores April 8, and reached 


yank 


Salem, June 12.° But Salem proved not to their liking, 
they almost immediately removed to Massachusetts Bay, where 
the majority of Winthrop’s immediate associates settled on the 
north side of Charles river at Charlestown, but a few took up their 


abode on the south side at what was soon to be named Boston.’ 





1 Records, 1:59, 60; Young, /ézd., pp. 104, 105. 

2 Of Winthrop, one of the greatest names in New England history, little need here be said. 
Born at Edwardston, Suffolk, Jan., 1588, of a family of considerable prominence, he studied at 
Cambridge for two years, beginning with 1602; but left without taking a degree. He practiced 
law, and discharged the duties of a justice, coming also into connection with many who were in 
Parliament ; but repeated domestic bereavement in early life increased the always serious bent of 
his spirit and inclined him to a profound interest in religious things. Precisely how his thoughts 
were turned toward Néw England we know not, but by May, 1629, he was seriously weighing the 
advisability of going thither. His agreement with others to undertake the voyage followed in 
August, and in October he was chosen governor of the Company. He arrived at Salem June 12, 
1630; and thenceforward, till his death in March, 1640, he lived in New England, and was intimately 
concerned with its affairs. From the foundation of Boston he was identified with that town. He 
held the governorship till 1634, and again 1637-1640, 1642-1644, 1646-1649. Strong, patient, courage- 
ous, and above all profoundly religious, the influence which he exercised in moulding the infant 
colony can hardly be over estimated. The best work regarding him is that of his descendant 
Robert C. Winthrop, Life and Letters of John Winthrop, 2 vols., Boston, 1864-1867. Of the 
many other sketches of him I will refer only to one of the earliest, Mather, J7agnadia, ed. 1853-5, 
I: 118-131; and the latest, Appleton’s Cyclopedia of Am. Biography, 1889, VI :572-574, and 
J. H. Twichell, John Winthrop, New York, 1801. 

8 The circumstances of their organization, and the later removal of a portion of this Dor- 
chester Company to what is now Windsor, Conn., will be related in a subsequent chapter. 

Prince, Chron. Hist. N. E., p. 240; Hutchinson, Hist. . ., Mass. Bay, 1:19; and 
Young, Chron . . Mass., p. 127, estimate the number of Puritan emigrants to New England in 
1630 at 1500, 

5 Winthrop, Hzstory (Journal), Savage’s 2d ed., I : 6-29. 

6 Dudley’s Letter to the Countess of Lincoln, Young, Cirou. . . Mass., p. 312. 

7 Jbid., 313. This settlement took place about July ro or 12. See Prince, Chron. Hist. N. 
PO DAO, 


126 THE BOSTON COVENANT, 1630 


If Samuel Fuller, the physician and deacon of Plymouth, was. 
correctly informed the attention of Winthrop’s company had 
already been drawn by a minister whom they held in high esteem 
and who was later to fill a distinguished teachership in the Boston 
church, John Cotton, then of Boston, England, to the model set by 
Plymouth.’ It was on ready soil, therefore, that the seeds fell 
when Fuller, who had been called to the medical aid of Winthrop’s 
company and the Dorchester emigrants before the governor had 
been three weeks on the New England shores, expounded the Ply- 
mouth church-way in public and private.* We may be sure also 
that Fuller’s earlier friend and sympathizer, Endicott, was of mate- 
rial aid in setting forth Congregational principles since Fuller 
speaks of himat this time asa second Barrowe.* But the Plymouth 
church was to have a yet more active share in directing the affairs 
of Winthrop’s company toward church organization. On Sunday, 
July 25, Isaac Johnson, Winthrop’s companion, being then at Salem, 
received a letter* from the governor at Charlestown entreating the 





1 Fuller to Bradford. Dated Massachusetts, June 28, 1630. Bradford’s Letter-Book, zr Codd. 
Mass. fTist. Soc., 111: 74,75. ‘*‘ Here isa gentleman, one Mr. Cottington, a Boston [Eng.] man, 
who told me that Mr. Cotton’s charge at Hampton was, that they should take the advice of them at. 
Plymouth, and should do nothing to offend them.”’ z. ¢., at Southampton before sailing. 

2/é¢d. ‘* We have some privy enemies in the bay, but (blessed be God) more friends; the: 
Governour hath had conference with me, both in private and before sundry others . . . the 
Governour hath told me he hoped we will not be wanting in helping them, so that I think you 
[z. e., Bradford and his associates] will be sent for.”’ 

3 Jbtd., ‘*asecond Burrow.”’ 

4 This letter and the consequent action, ismade known to us ina letter to Gov. Bradford,, 
Pastor Ralph Smith and Elder William Brewster, of Plymouth, written from Salem, July 26, 1630, by 
Winslow, and signed by Winslow and Fuller, Text in Bradford, W7st. Plym. Plant., pp. 277, 278 + 
and Letter Book, 7 Cold. Mass. Hist. Soc., 11:75, 76. Some important parts of Winslow’s letter are. 
as follows: ‘‘Sr: Being at Salem ye 25. of July, being y® saboath, after y® evéing exercise, Mr. 
Johnson received a letter from y® Govt, M'. John Winthrop, manifesting ye hand of God to be upon 
them, and against them at Charles-towne . . . It was therfore by his desire taken into ye 
Godly consideration of ye best hear, what was to be done to pacifie ye Lords wrath. [And they 
would do nothing without our advice, I mean those members of our church, there known unto them, 
viz. Mr. Fuller, Mr. Allerton, and myself, requiring our voices as their own.] Wher it was con- 
cluded, that the Lord was to be sought in righteousnes ; and to that end, y® 6. day (being Friday) of 
this present weeke, is set aparte, that they may humble them selves before God, and seeke him in 
his ordenances; and that then also such godly persons that are amongst them, and know each to: 
other, may publickly, at yeend of their exercise, make known their Godly desire, and practise ye 
same, viz. solemly toenter intocovenante with y® Lord to waike in his ways. And since they are 
so disposed of in their outward estats, as to live in three distinct places, each having men of abilitie: 
amongst them, ther to observe y® day, and become 3. distincte bodys; not then intending rashly to 
proceed to y® choyce of officers, or y? admitting of any other to their societie then a few, to witte, 
such as are well knowne unto them; promising after to receive in such by confession of faith, as. 
shall appeare to be fitly qualified for y estate. They doe ernestly entreate that y® church of Pli- 
moth would set apparte ye same day, for yesame ends, beseeching y® Lord, as to withdraw his, 
hand of correction from them, so also to establish and direct them in his wayes.’’ From Brad- 
ford’s Hzstory, clause in brackets added in Letter Book. 


FORMATION OF THE CHURCH 127 


advice of the Salem church in view of the severe mortality which was 
afflicting the new settlers on the Charles river. Deacon Fuller, 
Edward Winslow, and Isaac Allerton, of the Plymouth church, were 
at Salem, and the good people of that church sought their counsel 
also in the weighty matter laid before them.’ Possibly Winthrop 
had outlined, in the letter to Johnson, a plan for which he desired the 
approval of the Salem brethren; more probably Johnson was him- 
self sufficiently identified with Winthrop and his company to accept 
counsel in their behalf and to agree to a definite line of action in 
their stead. At all events, it was determined that Sabbath evening 
at Salem that the three settlements into which Winthrop’s immediate 
company had already divided, Charlestown, Watertown, and proba- 
bly either Roxbury or Medford,? should observe the coming Fri- 
day, July 30, as a fast; and that those who were fit among their 
inhabitants should enter into church-estate by covenant. At the 
same time the Plymouth church, in the persons of its three mem- 
bers at Salem, was entreated to “set apparte y®° same day, for 
y° same ends,” beseeching God’s mercy on the afflicted people of 


Massachusetts Bay and His blessing on their new church insti- 





1 The letter just quoted is indeed obscure. Prince, Chron. Hist. NV. E., pp. 242, 243, represents 
it as conveying information to Johnson at Salem, rather than asking advice. I have interpreted it 
as seems more probable to me. Winslow’s letter to Bradford certainly implies that the advice of the 
Salem people was sought, and given. That advice seems to include the establishment of covenant 
church relationships, as one means of seeking the Lord in righteousness. There was not time 
between Sunday evening, when Winthrop’s letter was received, and Monday, when Winslow’s letter 
was written, for any action embodying the Salemadvice to be taken at Charlestown and reported 
back to Salem. Hence the setting apart of Friday must have been definitely determined upon at 
Salem, and probably that Sabbath evening. As representative of the only other church which had 
had experience on New England soil (that of Dorchester had only just arrived) it was natural for 
Johnson and the Salem brethren to consult the men from Plymouth. Probably Winthrop may have 
suggested such a course, though it is hard to assert that to be the case from Winslow’s letter. We 
may assume also, though it does not appear on the record, that Salem observed the day in prayer 
for Winthrop’s company in the same way that was urged upon Plymouth. 


2 What are signified by the ‘‘three distinct places’’ and ‘‘3. distincte bodys’ 
letter is hard to say with certainty. Prince, Chron. Hist. N. E., p. 243, interprets them as Salem, 
Dorchester, and Charlestown. This view is, however, obviously incorrect, as Winslow’s letter 
clearly implies that the three places were inhabited by Winthrop’s immediate company, and by per- 
sons not yet gathered in church-estate; while Salem and Dorchester already had well-established 
churches. Of course one of the places is Charlestown, where Winthrop then was. Another is 
clearly Watertown, where a church was to be formed on the same day as the Charlestown-Boston 
church, and doubtless as a result of the same Salem advice. The third place is more obscure; but 
it can hardly have been Boston, which was regarded for two years longer as ecclesiastically one 
with Charlestown. Reasons which space does not permit me to elaborate incline me to think that 
either Roxbury or Medford is the third. The question is of little importance, for, whatever the 
third place may have been, we have no evidence of the formation of a church at this time else- 
where than at Charlestown and Watertown. 


’ 


of Winslow’s 


128 THE BOSTON COVENANT, 1630 


tutions. Thus, though the Boston church was to remain Non- 
conformist rather than Separate in its attitude toward the Church 
of England, it from the very first held out the hand of brother- 
hood, really if a little indirectly, to the Separatist body at Ply- 
mouth. In accordance with this advice, and upon the day des- 
ignated, Congregational churches were gathered at Charlestown 
and at Watertown,’ by the solemn adoption of a covenant. Agree- 
ably also to the counsel that there should be no rashness or haste 
in the admission of members, the church at Charlestown was 
formed, on this initial day of its history,’ by four men only, John 
Winthrop, Isaac Johnson,*? Thomas Dudley,* and Rev. John Wil- 
son®—the four most considerable personages in the little com- 





1 Mather, Magnadia, ed. 1853-5, 1: 377, gives the text of the Watertown covenant, and its 
date as July 30, 1630. Some unsuccessful attempts have been made to dispute the correctness of 
this date, but there can be no reasonable doubt as to its accuracy. See Francis, 7st. Sketch of 
Watertown, Cambridge, 1830, appendix, pp. 132-135 ; Note, by Savage, to Winthrop’s H/7st. V. £. 
(Journal), ed. 1853, 1: 112-114; Bond, Genealogies . . Early Settlers of Watertown, Boston, 
1855, pp. 979-982; Dexter, Cong. as seen, p. 413. 

2 Our knowledge of the circumstances under which the formation of the Charlestown-Boston 
church was effected is based on a letter of Samuel Fuller to Gov. Bradford, dated Charlestown, 
Aug. 2, 1630. Letter Book, r Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., 111: 76; and Bradford, Hzst. Plym. Plant., 
pp. 278, 279; in which he says: ‘‘Some are here entered into church covenante; the first were 4. 
namly, y®@ Govt, Mt. John Winthrop, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Dudley, and Mr. Willson; since that 5. 
more are joyned unto them, and others, it is like, will adde them selves to them dayly.”’ 

3 Isaac Johnson, the largest subscriber to the stock of the Mass, Company, and a man of 
prominence in every way, was from Clipsham, County of Rutland. His wife was the daughter of 
the Earl of Lincoln. Both were victims of the sickness which swept away so many of the first set- 
tlers of Charlestown, she dying in Aug. and he Sept. 30, 1630. See Dudley, Letter to Countess of 
Lincoln, Young, Chron. . . Mass., pp. 317,318; Hutchinson, Azst. . . Colony of Mass. 
Bay, 1:16; Eliot, Bzog. Dict., pp. 281-283 ; Savage’s Winthrop, ed. 1853, 1:5; Allen, Am. Biog. 
Dict., ed. Boston, 1857, p. 477, etc. 

4 Thomas Dudley, born at Northampton, Eng., 1576, gained some knowledge of law, served 
as the captain of a company of volunteers under Henry IV. of France in 1597. Then after some 
time became steward to the Earl of Lincoln, and embraced Puritan sentiments. Lived for a time 
at Boston, Eng. He united with Winthrop in the Cambridge Agreement, Aug. 26, 1629. On 
March 23, 1630, he was chosen deputy governor of the Company. He was always prominent 
in the colony, being elected governor four times, deputy thirteen times, and major-general. He 
died July, 1653. See Mather, Magnadza, ed. 1853-5, I : 132-135 ; Hutchinson, I: 14-15; Young, 
Chron. . . Mass., p. 304; Savage’s Winthrop, I: 60-62; z Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc., X1 : 207-222. 

5 John Wilson, at first teacher, then pastor of the Charleston-Boston church, was born at 
Windsor, Eng., 1588, his father being canon of the castle chapel. His mother was a niece of 
Archbishop Grindall. Wilson was educated at Eton, and then at Cambridge, where he gradu- 
ated A. B., 1605, and A. M., 1609. His father persuaded him to study law, not approving of his 
Puritan tendencies, but Wilson’s bent was for the ministry. After serving as chaplain in Puritan 
families and preaching in various places, he settled at Sudbury, Suffolk, where he came to know 
Winthrop. Here, though a minister of the Church of England, his Puritan inclinations were so 
marked as to lead the bishop of Norwich to suspend and silence him. The prohibition was re- 
moved, through influence, but Wilson preferred to go to New England and therefore joined with 
Winthrop. He was chosen teacher of the Boston church at Charlestown, Aug. 27, 1630; and pastor 
Nov. 22, 1632 (Winthrop, Savage’s ed. 1853, I: 36-39, 114. 115). He remained in office till his 
death, Aug. 7, 1667. Though inferior in ability to his ministerial associate, John Cotton, he was 
aman of mark, well liked for his sweet temper, and popular in the community. He wrote little. 


CHOICE OF OFFICERS 129 


munity." Within three days five more had been admitted to fel- 
lowship, and other members joined in rapid succession. 

The church so begun was not yet equipped with officers; 
though all men knew who was to be its minister, and preaching 
was doubtless maintained. The next step was taken by the Gen- 
eral Court of the Company, on August 23, 1630, when support, to 
be raised by taxation from those places under the Massachusetts 
jurisdiction where churches had not been formed previous to July 
30, was voted to Mr. Wilson of Charlestown-Boston and Mr. Phillips 
of Watertown.’ It was not till after the salary of its minister had 
thus been provided, that the Charlestown-Boston church held 
another fast, and solemnly chose and installed its officers August 
27, 1630. At that time John Wilson was elected teacher, Increase 
‘Nowell ruling-elder, and William Gager and William Aspinwall 
deacons.* The officers thus selected were then installed by the 
laying on of hands, but with the express reservation, in the case of 
Mr. Wilson, that the act was not to be construed as a denial of the 
validity of his English and Episcopal ordination.’ 

But Charlestown was not to be the permanent home of the 
majority of its early settlers; by the time that the officers were 
chosen the exodus to Boston was well begun, by November the 
governor himself had removed thither,’°—soon Boston was more 


populous than Charlestown. Naturally services began to be held 


See Mather, Wagnadlia, ed. 1853-5, I : 302-321; Eliot, pp. 496-499; Emerson, (7st. Sketch First Ch. 
in Boston, Boston, 1812, assim ; Young, Chron. . . Mass., pp. 325, 326; Savage’s Winthrop, 
passim; A. W. M’Clure, Lives of the Chief Fathers of N. £., Boston, (1846) 1870, II : 7-172; 
Sprague, Annals Am. Pulpit, 1: 12-15; A. B. Ellis, Wzst. First Ch. Boston, Boston, 1881, pp. 
4-6, 98-102 ; Appleton’s Cyclop. Am. Biog., V1: 553, etc. 

1 Their only rivals in station, Sir Richard Saltonstall and Rev. George Phillips, were the 
leaders of the branch of the settlement at Watertown. 

2 Mass. Colonial Records, 1: 73. Both were to have houses built at public expense. Mr. 
Phillips was to have also specified provisions and £20 per annum, or £40 without provisions, at his 
option. Mr. Wilson £20 ‘‘ till his wife come ouer.’’ ‘* All this to be att the comon charge, those of 
Mattapan [Dorchester] & Salem onely exempted,”’ 7. ¢., because these two places had churches of 
their own. 

3 Winthrop, Hzst. V. £. (Journal), Savage’s ed. 1853, I: 36-39. 

4Tbid. See ante, p. 99. 

5 Winthrop’s letter to his wife is dated ‘‘Boston . . . Nov. 29, 1630.’ J/ézd., I: 456. 
The Early Records of Charlestown, given in Young, Chron. . . . Alass., 371-387, contain a 
picturesque and circumstantial account of the settlement of Charlestown and Boston. Doubtless 
it rests upon good traditional evidence, and is accurate in general impression ; but it was compiled 
in 1664, and should by no means be treated as a contemporary authority, as many historians have 
done. 


130 - THE BOSTON COVENANT, 1630 


on the Boston side,’ though the two peoples were looked upon as 
one congregation. The preponderance of Boston so increased 
that, in August, 1632, a meeting-house was begun there at the 
joint expense of the people of both places.” But the river was a 
barrier difficult to cross in bad weather, and it is no wonder that 
the people of Charlestown amicably withdrew from their brethren 
at Boston in October, 1632, and were formed into a church of their 
own on November 2 of that year. Thenceforward the Boston and 
Charlestown congregations pursued independent paths. The emi- 
nence already attained by the Boston church was crowned when 
its ministerial equipment was completed according to the ideas of 
the time, by the ordination of John Cotton, certainly the ablest of 
the early Massachusetts ministry, to the office of teacher, October 
1c, erOs42 ; 

The Charlestown-Boston covenant is a plain, sweet, simple 
promise of obedience to God and of aid to one another.* It does 
not touch upon doctrinal questions for the same reason that the 
early covenant of Salem does not treat of them,— such questions 
were not yet mooted in Winthrop’s company. But it was of the 
highest importance for the development of Congregationalism on 
our shores; for it was the work of men who were essentially con- 
servative, who had no desire to break with the Church of England 
and did not regard themselves as separating from her. And it 
was the work, too, of those who were, and were to be, above all 
others, the leaders and founders of civil institutions in Massachu- 
setts. In thus heartily embracing Congregationalism at the outset 





1 Probably the services were thenceforth held chiefly in Boston, as the pastor and governor 
moved thither. Hunnewell, Commemoration of the 250th Anniversary First Ch., Charlestown, 
p. 30, records a tradition that preaching was had at first alternately in Boston and Charlestown. 

2 Winthrop, as cited, I: 104. While at Charlestown the services were held in part in the open 
air and in part in the ‘‘ great house”’ built at the expense of the Company in 1629. Hunnewell, as 
cited, p. 30. 

3 Winthrop, as cited, I: 112. Hunnewell, as cited, p. 31. For the covenant then adopted, 
see ante, p. 116. 

4 Winthrop, as cited, 1: 135-137. The church had advanced in its opposition to Episcopal 
rites and ordinances since the days of Wilson’s election, for though Cotton had long been a minister 
of the Church of England, he was now explicitly oxdazued to his Boston office, by the imposition 
of the hands of the pastor and elders and prayer. 

5 Dr. McKenzie, in his Dzscourse printed in connection with the address of Mr. Hunnewell, 
just cited, p. 8, suggests that the covenant is propably from the pen of Winthrop. It is still in use 
by the First Church in Boston (now Unitarian). 


TEXT OF THE COVENANT Lak 


the Charlestown-Boston Christian community made it certain that 
Congregationalism was to be the polity of Puritan New England. 


THE CHARLESTOWN-BOSTON COVENANT.’ 


In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, & in Obedience to His 
holy will & Divine Ordinaunce. 

Wee whose names are herevnder written, being by His most 
wise, & good Providence brought together into this part of America 
in the Bay of Masachusetts, & desirous to vnite our selves into one 
Congregation, or Church, vnder the Lord Jesus Christ our Head, 
in such sort as becometh all those whom He hath Redeemed, & 
Sanctifyed to Himselfe, do hereby solemnly, and religiously (as in 
His most holy Proesence) Promisse, & bind o'selves, to walke in 
all our wayes according to the Rule of the Gospell, & in all sincere 
Conformity to His holy Ordinaunces, & in mutuall love, & respect 
each to other, so neere as God shall give vs grace. 





1 Text from A. B. Ellis, History of the First Church in Boston, p.3. Mr. Ellis, now clerk 
of the First Church, has kindly verified the text in his Hzstory by a fresh comparison with the copy 
of the Records of the First Church made by David Pulsifer in 1847. 


VIII 


HOOKER’S SUMMARY OF CONGREGATIONAL 
PRINCIPLES, 1645 


I. These articles were originally published in Hooker's preface to his Survey 
of the Summe of Church-Discipline, etc., London, . . 1648, pp. [xvii-xix.] 
Thence they were reproduced in 

II. Hanbury, Historical Memorials, etc., London, 1839-44, III : 266, 267; and 

III. Felt, Acclesiastical History of New England, Boston, 1855, 1: 566; and 

IV. G.L. Walker, History of the First Church in Hartford, Hartford, 1884, 


pp. 144, 145. 





‘ae coming of Winthrop’s company was but the beginning of 
a great outpouring’ from Old England to the New, —an 
emigration which continued in full force till the changes in the 
English political horizon at the opening of the Long Parliament 
gave promise to the Puritans of satisfactory reforms at home, and 
thus removed the chief impulse toward the planting of Puritan 
colonies beyond the Atlantic. As a whole, this great emigration 
was remarkably homogeneous in character and united in habits 
of religious thought. But it was impossible that in so large a 
body some degree of diversity should not be found. It is remark- 
able that, freed as the emigrants were from the restraints of the 
English Establishment, their divisions were so few and so com- 
paratively unimportant. 

The first really serious question to disturb the peace of our 
rising churches was that occasioned by the coming of Mrs. Anne 


1 Johnson, Wonder-Working Providence, London, 1654, Poole’s reprint, Andover, 1867, p. 
31, estimated the number who had come to New England by 1643 as 21,200. These figures were 
approved by Pres. Stiles in a glowing sermon preached Apl. 23, 1760, at Bristol, R. I., before the 
Congregational Convention of that province—a sermon in which the preacher indulged in pre- 
dictions as to the growth of New England’s population during the next roo years which far exceed 
anything which has been realized on New England soil. Pres. Stiles added the observation that 
between 1643 and 1760 more persons probably left New England than came to her shores. Palfrey, 
Hist. N. E., 1: vii (Preface), substantially accepts these statements ; and doubtless they are approx- 
imately true, though Savage in a note to Winthrop, ed. 1853, II: 403, 404, intimates that the figures 
may not be taken as final. 


(132) 


THE ANTINOMIAN DISPUTE 133 


Hutchinson to Boston in 1634, Mr. Henry Vane in 1635, and Mrs. 
Hutchinson’s husband’s brother-in-law, Rev. John Wheelwright, in 
1636. The views of Mrs. Hutchinson, embraced as they were in large 
degree not only by the two whose names have been associated 
with hers, but by a majority of the Boston church, were stigma- 
tized by her opponents as “Antinomian’”’; and certainly laid far too 
much stress on the believer’s confidence in his good estate, rather 
than visible betterment in his character, as evidence of his ac- 
ceptance with God, However worthy of respect Mrs. Hutchinson 
herself may have been, there can be no doubt that the contro- 
versy raised by her came perilously near wrecking the infant col- 
onies ; and the greatness of the danger explains in part, without 
justifying, the severe measures .f repression employed by the 
churches and the government.’ The dispute occasioned the call- 
ing by the Massachusetts General Court’ of the first Synod ever 
held jn New England, an assembly which met on Aug. 30, 1637,° 
at what is now Cambridge, and continued in session, with Thomas 
Hooker* and Peter Bulkeley,” as moderators, for twenty-four 
days. By this Synod some eighty-two opinions, ascribed to or 
said to be deducible from the teachings of Mrs. Hutchinson, and 
other disturbers of the churches at the time, were condemned.° 


1 The sources and literature of this controversy are presented in an admirable bibliographical 
note by Winsor in the Memorial History of Boston, Boston, 1882, 1:176,177. To the summary 
there given the writer may add as having appeared since the publication of the HW7zs¢ory, a contem- 
porary document of the first importance, communicated by Prof. F. B, Dexter, to the 2 Proc. Mass. 
Fist. Soc., VV: 159-191, from the MSS. collected by Pres. Stiles, and giving a report of the trial of 
Anne Hutchinson. The controversy has been discussed from various points of view by G. L. 
Walker, 7st, First Ch. in Hartford, Hartford, 1884, pp. 97-103; Brooks Adams, E7ancipation 
of Mass., Boston, 1887, pp. 44-78; Doyle, The English in America, Puritan Colonizes, London, 
1887, 1: 173-189 ; G. E. Ellis, Perttan Age . . in . . Mass., Boston, 1888, pp. 300-362. 
Dr. Winsor does not include Punchard, History of Congregationalism, Boston, 1880, IV : 196-248, 
who gives a good sketch of the controversy and its results; and since Winsor’s note was written 
Charles Francis Adams has published a picturesque and valuable narrative of the dispute in his 
Three Episodes of Mass. History, Boston, 1892, pp. 363-578. 

2 The fact of this call is not mentioned in the Colony Records or Winthrop, but may be de- 
duced from the latter’s statement that the diet of the Synod and the traveling expenses of the 
delegates from Connecticut were paid by the government. Savage’s ed. 1853, I: 288. 

3 A contemporary account of its proceedings is to be found in Winthrop, /dzd., 1: 284-288. 
In attendance ‘‘ were all the teaching elders through the country, and some new come out of 
England.”’ 

4 Of Hartford, Conn. 

5 Of Concord, Mass. 

8 These opinions are given in Winthrop and Welde’s Short Story of the Rise, reign, and 
ruine of the Antinomians, Familists & Libertines, that infected the Churches of Nevv Eng- 
Zand, London, 1644; but are more accessible in Felt, Acclestastical History of N. E., Boston, 


1855, I : 313-319. 


134 HOOKER’S CONGREGATIONALISM, 1645 


But the most effective, if least creditable, termination to the dan- 
gerous dispute was given not by the Synod, but by the Court, in 
banishing Wheelwright and Mrs. Hutchinson and some of their 
prominent supporters from the Massachusetts jurisdiction, by its 
sentence on November 2, 1637.’ 

These internal conflicts were, however, only a portion of the 
difficulties in which the early New England churches found them- 
selves involved. As has already been pointed out, though the 
churches of Massachusetts Bay and of Connecticut had left Eng- 
land as Non-Conformists rather than Separatists, and though in- 
fluential churches, like that of Boston, still refused to reject the 
Church of England as anti-Christian, they had all of them never- 
theless organized on the model set by Separatist Plymouth. It 
was natural that such action should excite a degree of alarm in 
the minds of those Puritans in England who still hoped for the 
reformation of the Establishment, and especially that dominant 
wing of English Puritanism whose non-conformity looked rather in 
the direction of Presbyterianism than Congregationalism. Such 
alarm found expression in 1636 or 1637 in A Letter of Many Mints- 
ters in Old England, requesting The judgement of thetr Reverend 
Brethren in New England concerning Nine Positions, written Anno 
Dom, 1637.2 These questions have to do with the use of a liturgy, 
admission to the sacraments, church-membership, excommunication, 
and ministerial standing. To this letter of inquiry the ministers 
of New England responded at some length in 1638 and 1639, by 
the pen of John Davenport,’ pastor of the church at New Haven. 





1 Records, . . Mass. Bay, 1: 207. 

2So the title page of the first edition of this document, 1643; but Shepard and Allin credit 
its sending to 1636. See Felt, Eccles. Hist. N. E.,1: 277. The Letter to New England, the Reply, 
and Ball’s Rejoinder were printed in one small volume in London in 1643. The same year, also, 
the New England answers were printed at London, together with Richard Mather’s Answer to the 
XXXII Questions, about to be noted, and his reply to Bernard regarding Church-Covenant — the 
whole under the title of Church-Government and Church-Covenant Discussed, etc., and fur- 
nished with a preface by Hugh Peter. The Letter, Replies, and Rejoinder are given in copious 
extract by Hanbury, H7stortcal Memorials, 11: 18-39; and the Positions may be found also in 
Felt, Eccles. Hist. N. E., 1: 277; and a summary of the Answers, /ézd., 366-368. 

3 On its authorship see I. Mather, Dzscourse Concerning the Unlawfulness of Common 
Prayer, [1689] p. 14. The first copy miscarried, 1638, and the reply was sent anew in 1639. See 
Church-Government, as cited, pp. 24, 28; and Shepard and Allin’s Defence (Hanbury, Memorials, 
III: 36). 


TRACTS BY DAVENPORT AND MATHER 135 


A rejoinder, by Rev. John Ball on the part of the English critics, 
followed in 1640; and a defense of the New England answers by 
Rev. Thomas Shepard of Cambridge, Mass., and Rev. Thomas 
Allin of Charlestown, in 1645.’ | 

About the time’ that the ze Positions were sent over to New 
England the English Puritans also forwarded to their brethren 
across the sea a list of Zhirty-two Questions for answer.’ These 
inquiries covered the whole field of church polity and procedure, 
treating of such matters as the constitution of a church, the con- 
ditions of membership therein, the churchly character of English 
parishes, the ministry, the brethren and their methods of proce- 
dure, ministerial settlement and standing, and lay-preaching; as 
well as of doctrinal symbols and the legislative powers of synods 
and councils. And to these questions also the churches of New 
England sent a full and candid reply by the pen of Rev. Richard 
Mather, of Dorchester, in 1639." 

The Congregationalism of both these replies is of the type of 
Barrowe rather than that of Browne. It gives practically all power 
into the hands of the officers of the church, and leaves to the 
brethren little more than a bare right to consent.® But if this 





14 Defence of the Answer made unto the 9 questions . . . against the Reply thereto 
of John Ball, etc., London, 1645. The more essential portions are reprinted in Hanbury, JZemzo- 
rials, II1: 33-43. 

2 Felt, Zccles. Hist. N. £., 1: 278. 

3 These Questions were published, with Mather’s Answers, at London in 1643, in the book 
entitled Church-Government and Church-Covenant Discussed, etc., cited in note, p. 134. The 
Questions are also given in Felt, /4zd@., 1: 278-282 ; and the Answers are epitomized, /é7d., pp. 380-386. 

4 Mather speaks in the name of the New England ministers throughout his tract, and his son, 
Increase Mather, expressly affirmed that ‘‘ what he wrote was approved of by other Elders, espe- 
cially by M77. Cotton, unto whom he Communicated it.’? Order of the Gospel, Boston, 1700, p. 73. 
See also Dexter, Cong. as seen, p. 426. But a passage in Cotton’s Reply to Mr. Williams his ex- 
amtnation (printed in 1647, reprinted in Pwd. Narragansett Club, Providence, 1867, II: 103), 
which Dr. Dexter seems to have overlooked, makes it evident that though Mather’s sentiments had 
the approval of the New England ministry, the Answers were not submitted to them. ‘‘ Though 
he [R. Williams] say, that Mt. Cotto, and the New-English Elders returned that Answer [the 318]: 
yet the answer to that Question, and to all the other thirty-two Questions, were drawne up by Mr. 
Mader, and neither drawne up nor sent by me, nor (for ought I know) by the other Elders here, 
though published by one of our Elders [Hugh Peter] there.’’ But though Cotton had no share in 
the composition of the Answers, he approved them, for he goes on, in the next paragraph, to say: 
**T have read it, and did readily approve it (as I doe the substance of all his Answers) to be judi- 
cious, and solide.” The same fact is attested by the Preface to the Disputation concerning 
Church Members, London, 1659 (7. ¢., result of Half-Way Covenant Convention of 1657): ‘* The 
32 Questions, the Answerer whereof was Mr. Richard Mather, and not any other Elder or Elders in 
New England.”’ 

5 See Davenport’s answer to the sth Position, Church-Government and Church-Covenant 
Discussed, p. 72; and Richard Mather’s reply.to the 15th Question, /ézd., pp. 47-60. Compare also 
Dexter, Cong. as seen, pp. 425-430. 


136 - HOOKER’S CONGREGATIONALISM, 1645 


type of Congregationalism was not far removed from Presbyteri- 
anism in the administration of the internal affairs of the individual 
church by its officers, it was widely at variance with the Presby- 
terian model in regard to the power of synods over the churches 
and the right ofeach church to set ‘apart its ministry.’ In these 
matters the New England apologists asserted a much larger liberty 
than Presbyterianism would countenance. 

But Presbyterianism had always been popular among the Puri- 
tans of England, and as the struggle with Charles wore on, and 
Scotch influence grew in English counsels, Presbyterian predomi- 
nance in the mother-land became more marked. ‘The first of July, 
1643, saw the meeting of the Westminster Assembly, the great 
ecclesiastical council which Parliament had summoned by an ordi- 
nance of June 12, of that year, to give advice as to the reformation 
of the Church of England.’ This body, as is well known, was over- 
whelmingly Presbyterian in sentiment, the Congregationalists be- 
ing represented by only five men of prominence and a few of com- 
parative insignificance in the Assembly; though this proportion, 
fair enough perhaps at the time when the Assembly was called, 


was far from representing the strength of Congregationalism in 


1 See answers to the 7th and 8th Positions, /dzd., pp. 76-78; and to the 18th Question, /d7d., 
pp. 62-66. 

2 The Westminster Assembly was in regular session from July 1, 1643, to Feb. 22, 1649. It 
never formally adjourned, and continued to meet, in some sort, till March 25, 1652. Its work em- 
braced (a) Directory for the Publique Worship of God, etc., prepared in 1644, and approved by 
Parliament Jan. 3, 1645. (&) Advice for Ordination of Ministers and the Settling of Presbyterian 
Government ; modified and approved by Parliament in November, 1645, June, 1646, and June, 1647 
(see also Dexter, Cong. as seen. Bibliog. Nos. 1233, 4, 96). By the approval of these recommenda- 
tions, and by express ordinances in August, 1645, Presbyterianism became the legal form of church- 
government in England, though actually put into complete practice only in London and Lancashire. 
(c) Humble Advice . . . concerning a Confession of Faith (the Westminster Confession), 
presented to Parliament Dec. 4, 1646; adopted by the Scotch General Assembly, Aug. 27, 1647; 
somewhat amended by Parliament in the governmental articles, and issued for England June 20, 
1648. (d@) A Larger Catechism, and A Shorter Catechism, presented to Parliament in October 
and November, 1647, and by it approved Sept. 15, 1648. The Scotch General Assembly approved 
July 20 and 28, 1648, respectively. 

It is hardly necessary to observe that this great council, which formulated the beliefs of Scot- 
land and Presbyterian America, was essentially Puritan in composition. One hundred and fifty 
persons were called to it by Parliament (149 only appear in the Lord’s Journal, but Prof. Masson 
has shown this to be a probable error. See his L7/e of John Milton, 11: 515-525, where the full 
list of members is given, with biographical notes). Of this 150, 30 were laymen, the remaining 120 
being almost to a man clergymen of the Church of England. A considerable proportion absented 
themselves. To this body, eight Scotch commissioners, five clerical and three lay, had the right to 
add their presence and their voices in debate. They were chosen by the Scotch General Assembly, 
Aug. 19, 1643. The composition and work of the Assembly is well described, and its literature 
pointed out, by Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 1; 727-820; see also Masson, Life of John Milton, 
II: 609 — IV: 63, passzm. 


PRESBYTERIANISM IN NEW ENGLAND is? 


the nation after the acceptance of its main principles by Cromwell 
and the army.’ 

It was natural that, though New England had embraced Con- 
gregationalism of the Barrowist type, this growth of Presbyterian- 
ism in England should not be without its influence on this side of 
the water. Particularly was this the case at Newbury, where 
Thomas Parker and James Noyes were pastor and teacher. These 
honored ministers wished to do away with the right of consultation 
and assent which the Barrowist Congregationalism of New England 
left to the brethren in matters of church discipline. They would 
gladly see partial Presbyterianism introduced, and looked to the 
Westminster Assembly as a hopeful means for the accomplishment 
of this result. These views brought trouble into the church at New- 
bury, and the result was the assembly of a general meeting of the 
ministers of the colonies, a body which has sometimes, though 
erroneously, been styled a Synod,” and ranked the second in date 
among the Synods of New England. But the testimony of Richard 
Mather, himself a member, to its non-synodical character is too 


strong to be set aside,* and is supported by Winthrop’s statement 





1 The Congregationalists or Independents in the Westminster Assembly, though few, vigor- 
ously sustained their views and were, on the whole, treated with much respect, though outvoted at 
all points. As early as Dec. 30, 1643 (on date see Masson’s J/z@fon, III: 23, 24), Rev. Messrs. 
Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, Sidrach Simpson, Jeremiah Burroughes, and William Bridge, joined 
in a sweet-tempered and modest publication, under the title of A A pologeticall Narration humbly 
submitted to the Honourable Houses of Parliament, London, 1643. In this tract they declare 
their entire agreement in points of doctrine with the Presbyterian wing of the Assembly, but desire 
permission to exercise a degree of liberty in matters of church-government. In 1645 we find these. 
men, with William Greenhill and William Carter, uniting in A Remonstrance Lately Delivered in 
to the Assembly, London, 1645, in which they excuse themselves for not presenting a full model of 
Congregational church-government, on the ground that in view of recent votes of Parliament and 
the tone of the Assembly it would be useless. A few other names of Congregationalists in the 
Assembly, making perhaps a dozen in all, may be found in Schaff, Creeds, I: 737. See also Dexter, 
Cong. as seen, pp. 647-659. Of the New England ministers, Cotton, Davenport, and Hooker were 
offered elections to the Assembly, but declined to go. 

2 So Dexter, Cong. as seen, p. 432. 

3 Samuel Rutherford, in his Due right of Presbytertes, London, 1644, pp. 476-481, gives some 
**Synodicall propositions’’ which he had received by letter from New England. Richard Mather, 
in his Reply to Mr. Rutherfurd, London, 1647, pp. 77, 78 (the pages should have been numbered 
87, 88, the figures 71-80 being repeated), thus comments upon them: ‘‘ There was indeed at Camm-. 
éridge in the year 1643, a printed [private?] conference of some of the Elders of that Country ;. 
where sundry points of Church judgement were privatly discoursed of, and this was all. But asthe 
meeting was not any Synod, as Synods are usually understood, so neither were there any Synodicall 
propositions there agreed upon. . . . This I am able to testifie, having been present at that- 
meeting from the beginning thereof unto the end: . . . What information he goeth upon, I 
know not: peradventure some notes may have come to his view, which one or other might gather 
at that conference for his own private use: Peradventure some in their simplicity meaning no hurt, . 

Io 


138 HOOKER’S CONGREGATIONALISM, 1645 


that it‘““was an assembly . . . of all the elders in the country, 
(about 50 in all,) such of the ruling elders as would were present 


1 


also, but none else.”* It lacked the presence of representatives of 


the brethren of the churches which distinguishes a Synod from a 
ministerial Convention. 

The sessions of the meeting were held at Cambridge, and the 
participants were entertained in the recently erected college build- 
ing much after the manner of students.” The Convention opened 
on September 4, 1643, and had for its moderators Cotton and 
Hooker.’ How long its sessions lasted we do not know, but it 
ended in a presentation of arguments on both sides and a disap- 
proval of some features of Presbyterianism. The positive action 
of the meeting was summed up by a contemporary observer, doubt- 
less a member of the assembly, as follows: —* 


‘‘We have had a Synod lately, in our College, wherein sundry things were 
agreed on gravely; as, I. That the votes of the People are needful in all admissions 
and excommunications, at least in way of consent; all yielding to act with their con- 
sent.— 2. That those that are fit matter for a church, though they are not always 
able to make large and particular relations of the work and doctrine of Faith, yet 
must not live in the commission of any known sin, or the neglect of any known duty. 
— 3. That Consociation® of churches, in way of more general meetings, yearly; and 
more privately, monthly, or quarterly ; as Consultative Synods ; are very comfortable, 
and necessary for the peace and good of the churches.— 4. It was generally desired 
That the exercttium of the churches’ power might only be in the Eldership in each 
Particular Church ;° unless their sins be apparent in their work.—5. That Parish 
Churches in Old England could not be right without a renewed Covenant at least, 
and the refusers excluded.” 


The grounds of these decisions, in so far as they were anti- 
Presbyterian, were referred to the brethren of Newbury for their 
further consideration;’ but, unfortunately, the work of the minis- 


may have called that private conference by the name and tearme of aSynod . . . But however 
they [the] mistake a Rose [arose], sure I am, Synodicall propositions there were none; nor any 
Synod at all.” 

1 Winthrop, ed. 1853, II: 165. 2 Jhzd. 3 Jbid. 

4 This statement of the result of the meeting was contained in a letter from an unnamed 
writer in New England to a minister in England, quoted in A Reply of two of the Brethren to 
A. S. . . , and some modest and innocent touches on the Letter from Zeland, and Mr. 
Parkers from New England, etc., London, 1644, p. 7. The passage is quoted by Hanbury, JZe- 
nioriats, Il: 343. 

5 This word was not yet used in the technical sense in which it was afterward employed in 
Connecticut —a modern ‘‘ conference’”’ is more the thought here. 

6 This is pure Barrowism. 

7 Winthrop, II: 165: ‘‘ The assembly concluded against some parts of the presbyterial way, 
and the Newbury ministers took time to consider the arguments, etc.’’ We are fortunately in pos- 


THE MINISTERIAL CONVENTION, 1643 139 


ters neither changed the opinions of Noyes and Parker nor healed 
the trouble in the Newbury church.’ 

But Presbyterianism was rapidly gaining ground in England 
since Scotch military support seemed indispensable to the main- 
tenance of the Parliamentary side in the conflict with the King. 
The same month in which the ministers’ Convention of 1643 held 
its sessions at Cambridge saw the adoption of the Scotch Covenant 
by Parliament and the army, and the completion of the alliance 
between Parliament and the northern kingdom. The political 
and religious activity of the period was productive of a flood of 
pamphlets and books, many of which bore upon questions of deep 
interest to the Congregationalists of New England; and some 
directly criticized the New England polity from a Presbyterian 
standpoint. Such a work was Prof. Samuel Rutherford’s Due right 
of Presbyteries, etc.,? a treatise in favor of the government of the 
Church of Scotland, of which the author was one of the brightest 
ornaments. Rutherford here opposed, in kindly spirit and with 
much learning, the New England view, as set forth in Cotton’s 


Way of the Churches,* then being circulated in England in manu- 





session of Mr. Parker’s own version of the difficulty and the result. Under date of Dec. 17, 1643, 
he wrote to a friend in the Westminster Assembly as follows: ‘‘I assure you we have a great need 
of help in the way of Discipline, and we hope that we shall receive much light from you 
although we [Parker and Noyes] hold a fundamental power of Government in the People, in respect 
of election of ministers, and of some acts in cases extraordinary, as in the want of ministers* yet we 
judge, upon mature deliberation, that the ordinary exercise of Government must be so in the Pres- 
byters as not to depend upon the express votes and suffrages of the People. There hath been a 
convent, or meeting, of the Ministers of these parts, about this question at Cambridge, in the Bay ; 
and there we have proposed our arguments, and answered theirs; and they proposed theirs, and 
answered us: and so the point is left to consideration.” Trve Copy of a Letter written by Mr. 
T[homas| Plarker] . . . Declaring his Judgement touching the Governuntent practised tn 
the Chs. of N. £., London, 1644. 

1 Noyes published ‘‘ what are the points he holds, and wherein he can or cannot concur with 
them [his fellow-ministers in N. E.], and the Reasons why,” in 7he Temple Measured, etc., Lon- 
don, 1647. In this work he takes Presbyterian ground, save on the matter of governing elders, 
who are not to be distinct in office but are the ministers. For the later troubles in Newbury 
church, see Coffin, Sketch of the Hist. of Newbury, Boston, 1845, pp. 44, 54, 72-115. 

2 Printed at London, 1644. Rutherford —1600?-1661 — was born at Nisbet, Scotland, and 
studied at Edinborough, where he taught after graduation. In 1627 he settled at Anworth, but was 
deprived in 1636 for opposition to the attempts to introduce Episcopacy into Scotland, In 1639 the 
Presbyterian reaction made him professor of divinity at St. Andrews. He sat as a Scotch commis- 
sioner in the Westminster Assembly. In 1661 he died, just as the restored monarchy was proceed- 
ing against him for treason. 

3 Cotton’s Way of the Churches of Christ in New-England. Or the VVay of Churches 
walking in Brotherly equalitie, or co-ordination, without Subsection of one Church to another, 
got to England in manuscript and was published in 1645, the year after Rutherford’s work appeared, 
by ‘a Brownistical Author, without Mr. Cotton’s Consent or Knowledge’’ ; though exactly why 


I4O HOOKER’S CONGREGATIONALISM, 1645 


script, and in the recent works of Richard Mather in reply to the 
XXXII Questions, on Church-Covenant,’ and in answer to Herle.’ 
He also controverted the positions of Robinson's /vstification of 
Separation from the Church of England,’ and The Peoples Plea for 
the Exercise of Propheste,* both of which had recently been re- 
printed. In general, Rutherford proved himself familiar with a 
wide range of Congregational literature, and showed himself able 
to put his own case clearly and effectively. Such a critic was not 
to be despised, nor was he alone in attacking the New England 
system. In spite of the publication of Cotton’s great exposition of 
Congregational principles, The Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, in 
the same year that Rutherford’s work appeared, it was felt that a 
direct rejoinder must be made. And for this task no fitter pen 
could be found than that of Thomas Hooker’® of Hartford, the peer 





Cotton should have seriously objected is not very evident to a modern reader. See Owen, Defence 
of Mr. John Cotton, etc., 1658, pp. 36-38; Mather, Ratio Discipline, p. ii; Dexter, Cong. as seen, 
434. Rutherford quotes from the manuscript, and with some verbal freedom, as tested by the 
printed text. 

1 See ante, p. 134, note 2. 

2 Mather and Tompson, Jlodest & Brotherly Ansuver to Mr. Charles Herle his Book, 
against the Independency af Churches. London, 1644. 

3 1610. 431618. The works were reprinted in 1639 and 1641 respectively. 

5 Thomas Hooker, probably the ablest of the early New England ministers, was born at Mar- 
field, Leicester County, England, probably July 7, 1586. After preparation, probably at Market Bos- 
worth, he entered Queen’s College and then Emmanuel at Cambridge, graduating A.B. in 1608 and 
A.M. in 1611, and holding a fellowship after graduation, About 1620 he became rector of Esher, 
Surrey, a ‘‘donative’’ living, or one which could be given without the necessity of an order from a 
bishop inducting the candidate. He then became ‘‘lecturer,’’ or supplementary Puritan preacher, 
at St. Mary’s, Chelmsford, about 1625 or 1626; preaching there with great popular success. This 
of course attracted the unfavorable notice of Laud, who, as bishop of London, compelled him to 
relinquish his place, apparently in 1629. Hooker then opened a school, in connection with John 
Eliot, the later Indian missionary, at Little Baddow, near Chelmsford ; but he was not long allowed 
to remain in peace. In 1630 he was summoned before the High Commission, and fled to Holland to 
avoid appearance. Here he lived for a short time at Amsterdam, and then for two years as asso- 
ciate minister of the English (Non-conformist) church at Delft. He went thence to Rotterdam, 
where he was associated in the ministry, over the Puritan church at that place, with Dr. William 
Ames. Meanwhile his English friends in considerable numbers had gone to New England, and 
settled first at Mt. Wollaston and then at Newtown—soon to be called Cambridge—and there 
awaited his ministry. He therefore came to New England in 1633, with Samuel Stone of Hertford 
and Towcester who was to be teacher of Mr. Hooker’s congregation. On Oct. 11, 1633, Hooker 
and Stone were chosen pastor and teacher by the waiting congregation at Newtown. In 1636 they, 
with a majority of their church, removed to what was to be known as Hartford. Hooker was from 
his first coming prominent in all colonial affairs. He was a moderator at the Synod of 1637 and 
the Convention of 1643. He was instrumental in preparing the ‘t Fundamental Laws,” the first 
written constitution not only of Connecticut, but of English-speaking peoples, in 1639. He was in- 
vited by the Independents in Parliament to be one of three (with Davenport and Cotton) to 
enter the Westminster Assembly from New England. Hooker died at Hartford, July 7, 1647. 
His preaching was effective; his power in argument great. His theology was strongly Calvinistic, 
of the type later known as Hopkinsian. 

Among many sources of information respecting Hooker, the following may be mentioned: 


”” 


HOOKER’S “ SURVEY IAI 


of Rutherford in learning and inferior to none of the New England 
ministry in ability. His answer, 4 Survey of the Summe of Church- 
Discipline, was presented for the approval of a meeting of the min- 
isters of all the New England colonies held at Cambridge, July 1, 
1645, expressly to consider what action should be taken in view of 
the attacks of Presbyterians and Anabaptists.’ But the original 
draft of the work was lost on its way to England, by the founder- 
ing of the ship which carried it,’ and it was only after Hooker’s 
death that a second, and somewhat imperfect, copy was put into 
print by his Hartford friends.*® 

Able as the Survey unquestionably is, it may well be regretted, 
on the score of readableness and permanent influence, that the 
author did not produce a direct treatise on Congregationalism, 
cast in the mold of his own systematized thought, rather than the 
repetitious work which his minute method of answering Ruther- 


Mather, Magnadlia, ed. 1853-5, 1: 332-352; Trumbull, Hist. of Connecticut, New Haven, 1818, I: 
293, 294; Edward W. Hooker, Life of Thomas Hooker, Boston, 1849, 1870; Sprague, Annals of 
the Am. Pulpit, New York, 1857, 1: 30-37; Allen, Az. Biog. Dict., 3d ed., Boston, 1857, p. 442; 
Appleton’s Cyclopedia of Am. Biog., \W1: 251; Goodwin, in Dict. National Biog., XXVII: 295. 
By far the fullest lives of Hooker are two by G. L. Walker, one in his Hzst, Hirst Church tn Hart- 
Jord, Hartford, 1884, pp. 20-145; and the other in the ‘‘ Makers of America’’ Series, New York, 
1891. Hooker’s will, and a complete bibliography of Hooker’s writings by Dr. J. H. Trumbull, are 
given in connection with both of these biographies. 

1 Winthrop, Savage’s ed., 1853, II: 304, 305, records: ‘‘ Many books coming out of England, 
some in defence of anabaptism and other errors, and for liberty of conscience as a shelter for their 
toleration, etc., others in maintenance of the Presbyterial government (agreed upon by the assembly 
of divines in England) against the congregational way, which was practised here, the elders of the 
churches throughout all the United Colonies agreed upon a meeting at Cambridge this day [July 1, 
1645], where they conferred their councils and examined the writings which some of them had pre- 
pared in answer to the said books, which beirg agreed and perfected were sent over into England to 
be printed. The several answers were these: Mr. Hooker in answer to Mr. Rutterford the Scotch 
minister about Presbyterial government, (which being sent in the New Haven ship was lost).”’ 
What some of these ‘‘many books’? may have been the reader may judge by consulting the 
crowded titles under 1643 and 1644 in the bibliographical portion of Dexter’s Cog. as seen. So 
little is known of this meeting that the following note of a deacon of the Dorchester church is of 
value: ‘‘14 July 1645 in this mo: the elders did meet at Cambridge in mattachusets baye in N: E 
to Consider of the motion made amonge the Comissioners of the 4 Confederate Colloneyes: when 
they did meet at Conecticute viz to thinke of some things that might in ffuture give some testimony 
from new Engl about the great questid now in debate about church-Goverment [7. ¢., in the West- 
minster Assembly, then in session]: & notice hereof was given publikely in the Assembly at Dor- 
chester vicesimo nono Junii anno 45 that it was intended nothinge to bind the churches or inovate 
the practice there of but only private amonge the elders & was no Synod but in such case the 
churches ought to have notice & to send their comissioners: & so might express at any tyme, but 
the ptsent notice was that the church might know how to direct their prayer written ye daye above- 
said by me Jo Wiswall.”” Records . . . First Ch. at Dorchester, Boston, 1891, pp. 253-4. 

2 The celebrated *‘ phantom :ship,”’ Magnadia, ed. 1853-5, I: 84. 

3 Printed at London 1648. The circumstances are narrated by Edward Hopkins and William 
Goodwin of Hartford, in an epistle prefixed to the Survey. 


142 HOOKER’S CONGREGATIONALISM, 1645 


ford seemed to him to require.’ But in the preface, which he pre- 
pared, it would appear before sending the first draft to England in 
January, 1646,” Hooker has drawn up as clear a presentation of 
Congregational principles as has ever been given in the brief space 
of little more than a page of print, and one which has a special 
value as having been approved by all the ministers of Connecticut 
and a large portion of those of other colonies. 

This statement, compact as it is, shows a decided advance in 
Congregational development beyond anything yet reached in Eng- 
land or Holland. And nowhere is this more manifest than in its 
theory of the relation of churches one to another, a subject on 
which it exhibits a definiteness of view to which English Congre- 
gationalists, even of the present day, have not yet attained. Coun- 
cils, or ‘“‘consociation of churches,” are the proper expedients by 
which the advisory and admonitory relations of church to church 
may be expressed. Such councils may advise and entreat an 
erring church; if the church persist in error, the churches com- 
posing the council may renounce fellowship with the offending 
congregation. But excommunication of the erring, or the publica- 
tion of sentences of a judicial character, are beyond the proper 
powers of a council. Here, then, is the historic New England 
theory of the authority of church councils clearly expressed, and 
as fully representative of present American usage as of the cus- 
toms of 1645. It need scarcely be pointed out that this view of 
Hooker differs widely from the judicial theory of consociations 
afterwards adopted in Connecticut. 

In regard to ministerial standing, Hooker was clear, as were 
the New England Congregationalists of his day, that a man was a 
minister only in connection with a local church. On this point 
the usage of the church universal, which regards a man once set 
apart to the pastoral calling as permanently enrolled in ministerial 
ranks, has overcome the more logical theory of early Congrega- 
tionalism. In spite of the protests of some of the most earnest of 


1 See observations by G. L. Walker, H7zst. First Church in Hartford, pp. 143, 144. 

2 There is nothing in the preface which implies that a copy of the work had been lost, or that 
this was a new draft. The conclusion therefore seems plain that this is the original preface, and if 
so, written between the meeting of July 1, 1645, and January, 1646. 


Tee OF THEePRINGIPLES 143 


our modern exponents of Congregational polity,’ the theory of 
Hooker on this matter does not represent present usage, and 
American Congregationalists view one who has been ordained to 
the ministry, whether over a local church or not, as possessed of 


an abiding ministerial character. 


THE PRINCIPLES OF 1645 


“Tf the Reader shall demand how far this way of Church-pro- 
ceeding receives approbation by any common concurrence amongst 
us: J shall plainly and punctually expresse my self in a word of truth, 
an these following points, Viz. 

Visible Saints? are the only true and meet matter, whereof a 
visible Church should be gathered, and confcederation is the form.® 

The Church as Zotum essentiale, is, and may be, before Officers.’ 


1See a forcible defence of the older New England view by the late Dr. Dexter, Coxgrega- 
tionalism.: What itis; Whence it ts; How tt works. Boston, 1865, pp. 154-159. 

2 This subject is treated at length in the Survey, Pt. 1: pp. 13-34. Hooker understands by 
Visible Saints persons who give evidence of regeneration, and their infant offspring. ‘' Sazzts as 
they are taken in this controversie . . . were members of the Churches, comprehending the 
Infants of confcederate believers under their Parents Covenant, according to 1 Cor. 7. 14 : 
Satnts come under a double apprehension, Some are such according to Charity: Some according 
to truth. Saints according to charzty are such, who in their practice and profession (if we look at 
them in their course, according to what we see by experience, or receive by report and testimony 
from others, or lastly, look we at their expressions) they savour so much, as though they had 
been with Jesus. . . . These we call vistble Saints (leaving secret things to God).” Survey, 
Ptelet pps v4. Ts. 

3 7, e., union in a church-covenant. Hooker defines a church as having God for its efficient 
cause, “‘ visible saints’”’ as its ‘‘materiall cause,’’ and the church-covenant as its “‘ formall cause.” 
Survey, Pt. 1: 12, 45. But Hooker is far from declaring that this covenant must be formally ex 
pressed, though ‘‘ Its most according to the compleatnesse of the rude, and for the better being of 
the Church, ¢hat there be an explictte covenant.” A covenant may be “ zmféicite”’ ‘when in 
their practice they do that, whereby they make themselves 7xgaged to walk in such a society, ac- 
cording to such rules of government, which are exercised amongst them, and so submit themselves 
thereunto: but doe zof make any verbadll profession thereof. Thus the people in the Jarishes zn 
England, when there is a Mznzster put upon them by the Patrone or Bishop, they constantly hold 
them to the /e/lowshzp of the people in such a place, attend all the ordinances there used, and 
the dispensations of the Minister so imposed upon them, szdzzz¢ thereunto, perform all services 
that may give countenance or incouragement to the person in this work of his Ministery. By such 
actions, and a fixed attendance upon adZ such services and duties, they declare ¢rat by their 
practices, which others do hold forth by publike Jrofesston. This . . . I would intreat the 
Reader to observe once for all: that if he meet with such accusations, that we nullifie all Churches 
beside our own: that upon our grounds received there must be no Churches in the world, but in N, 
England, or some few set up lately in old: that we are rigid Sefaratists, &€ . . . a wise meek 
spirit passeth by them, as an unworthy and ungrounded aspersion.’’ Suvey, Pt. 1: pp. 47, 48. 

4 This matter is discussed in the Survey, Pt. I: pp. 89-93. The position taken is that while 
the church as an organized body —a Totum organicum— must have officers, these officers exist by 
virtue of the choice of the church, which must therefore precede them and have an existence inde- 
pendent of them. To deny this is ‘‘ As if one should say, It is 2o0¢ a Corporation of Aldermen, or 
freemen before the Maior be chosen. It is true, it is 2o¢ a compleat corporation of Maior and 
Freemen, unlesse there be both: but that hinders not, but they be a corporation of Free-men 
united amongst themselves, though there be no Maior. Nay, they 7wst be a corporation, de/ore 
they can chuse a Maior. . . . Doth a Corporation, when it puts out a wicked Maior out of his 
place . . . niullifie their Corporation by that means . . .?”? Survey, Pt. I: p. 2. 


144 HOOKER’S CONGREGATIONALISM, 1645 


There is no Presbyteriall Church (¢. e. A Church made up of 
the Elders of many Congregations appointed Classickwise, to rule 
all those Congregations) in the N, T.’ 

A Church Congregationall is the first subject of the keys.’ 

Each Congregation compleatly constituted of all Officers, hath 
sufficient power in her self, to exercise the power of the keyes, and 
all Church discipline, in all the censures thereof.* 


1 Discussed in Survey, Pt. 1: pp. 94-139. The argument is varied and minute, but Hooker 
affirms that all offices and officers are the gift of Christ ; that where there is no office there is no 
right to rule, that a church officer is to rule only over his particular congregation, and that no com- 
bination with other church officers can give him any right to rule over a congregation not his own, 
for he has no office over that congregation. If Presbyterianism be true the following points must 
be proved: ‘‘1. That a person may be a Pastour to a people, by whom he was never chosen. 2. 
And that he may be a Pastour (as the Office of a Pastour is appointed by Christ) to such, to whom 
he neither can nor should preach constantly. 3. And that he is bound to exercise Jurisdiction 
of censure, and decision of doubts to such, to whom he neither needs, nor indeed is bound to feed 
by the word. 4. or Lastly, that the Churches may give power to a man or men that Christ never 
appointed.”’ Survey, Pt. 1: p. 124. 

2 This technical expression of XVII century theology is thus defined by Hooker: ‘ Ecclesi- 
astical power made known unto us usually in Scripture under the name of Aeyes, the signe or ad- 
junct being put for the thing signified, the ensigne of authority for the authority it selfe. 

This poweria double: \ Supreme and Monarchicall, 
{ Delegate and Ministeriall. 
. The Supreme and Monarchicall power resides onely in our Saviour, 

2. There is also a subordinate and delegated power, which is proper to our create disquisi- 
tion, and is nothing else, but A right given by commeitssion from Christ to fit Persons, to act in 
his house, according to his order.’ Survey, Pt. 1: p. 185. Cotton thus expresses the idea: ‘‘ The 
keys of the kingdom are the Ordinances which Christ hath instituted, to be administred in his 
Church; as the preaching of the Word, (which is the opening and applying of it) also the adminis- 
tring of the Seals [sacraments] and censures.’’? Keyes, p. 2. Hooker’s conclusion is that ‘* The 
power of the Keyes ts comnittted to the Church of confederate Saints.’ Survey, Pt. 1: p. 192. 
‘**In the Church, and by vertue of the Church, they are communicated to any that in any measure 
or manner share therein.’”’ J/dzd, 195. ‘‘ The power of the Keyes take it in the compleat nature 
thereof, its in the Church of beleevers, as in the first subject, du¢ every part of it ts not in the 
same manner and order to be attended for tts ruling in the Church; but in the order and 
manner which Christ hath appointed.” Tbid, ‘It is not beleevers, as beleevers, that have this 
power, but as beleevers Covenanting and fitly capable according to Christs appointment, that are 
the first subject of this power. For beleevers that are as scattered stones, and are not seated in a 
visible Church or Corporation, as setled in the wall, these have not any Ecclesiasticall power.” 
Tbid., 203. But even within the church all believers do not share in the power of the Keys. ‘‘ This 
power is given to such beleevers, who are counted fit by Christ and capable, which women and 
Children, deafe, and dumbe, and distracted are not.’”’ Jé7d., 204. 

3 “These keyes, and the power signified by them, must be given to such, who have some of 
this power firstly, and formally, and originally, and virtually can give the rest of the power, 
which so given, may be fully exercised in all the acts of binding and loosing, according to all the 
necessities of the Church and intendment of our Saviour Christ. And this may readily be accom- 
plished and easily apprehended to be done by a Church of beleevers: They can admit, elect; this 
Jormally belongs to them; and officers being elected by them, the whole government of the 
Church, w ee then go on in all the operations thereof, and be fit to attain the ends, attenieg by our 
Saviaur.”’ Jdzd., 216. 

The Officers appointed by the Gospel are as follows; Suxvey, Pt. II: p. 4. 


‘* Officers of fi Ruli { Ruling onely, as Elders. 
the Gospel eee Le | arg St) Ruling and Teaching both, as { Pastors. 
may be Ware | Doctors [Teachers]. 


State of the body, as Deacons. 
Health, as Widowes, 





considered Supporting the 

ith refe- ; 

ME ee WP >. lection: 

rence to Institution, in < ieee \ 
; ( Ordination, 

their { 


TEXT OF THE PRINCIPLES 145 


Ordination is not before election.’ 

There ought to be no ordination of a Minister at large, 
Namely, such as should make him Pastour without a People. 

The election of the people hath an instrumentall causall ver- 
tue under Christ, to give an outward call unto an Officer.’ 

Ordination is only a solemn installing of an Officer into the 
Office, unto which he was formerly called.’ 

Children of such, who are members of Cone remntOnS, ought 
only to be baptized.’ 

The consent of the people gives a causall vertue to the com- 
pleating of the sentence of excommunication.*® 


1 Discussed in Survey, Pt. 2, pp. 39-41, ‘‘ Ord¢nation doth depend upon the feoples lawfull 
Election, asan Effect upon the Cause, by vertue of which it is fully Administred.” /dzd., 41. 

2 See /dzd., Pt. 2, Ch. 2. ‘*I shall by way of prevention, desire to settle that which zs our 
tenet : That Doctors [Teachers] and Pastors may preach, toall sorts, upon all occasions, when 
opportunity and liberty ts offered, nay they ought so to do. But this they do xot as Pastors, 
but as gifted and inabled Christians. Pt. 4, pp. 31, 32. 

3 ** Blection of the People rightly ordered by the rule of Christ, gives the essentials to an 
Officer, or leaves the tmpression of a true outward call,and so an Office-fower upon a Pas- 
tor.’ Tbid., Pt. 2, p. 66. See /ézd., 66-75. 

4 ORDINATION is an approbation of the Officer, and solemn setling and confirmation of 
him in his Office, by Prayer and laying on of hands.’ Tbid.,p.75. ‘* The maine weight of the 
worke [ordination] lyes in the solemnity of Prayer, which argues no act of jurisdiction at all.” 
Llbid., 7475]. ‘1. When the Churches are rightly constituted, and compleated with all the 
Orders and Officers of Christ, the Ricwr [perhaps rzte or r7ght use, the editors were undecided] 
of Ordination belongs to the Teaching Elders; the Act appertaines to the Presbyters consti- 
tuted of Ruling and Teaching. . . . 2. Though the act of Ordination belong to the Pres- 
bytery, yet the jus & fotestas ordinandz, is conferred firstly upon the Church by Christ, and 
residesin her. . . . Thirdly, incase . . . thecondition of the Church is such, that she is 
wholly destitute of Presbyters, she may then out of her owz ower, given her by Christ, provide 
for her own comfort, dy ordaining her own Ministers.” Ibtd., pp. 76, 77. 

5 Discussed in Survey, Pt. 3, pp. 10-28. Hooker holds that all children of church-members, 
i. e., of persons in covenant church relationship, are to be baptized irrespective of the moral char- 
acter of the parents, so long as the parents are not excommunicate. ‘‘ The pzzch then of the 
Question lyes here, Whether persons xox confederate, and so (in our sense not Memnzbers of the 
Church) do entitle their children to the seal of Baptisme, being one of the Priviledges of the 
Church, their Parents (though godly) being yet unwilling to come into Church-fellowship.’? This 
he answers in the negative, for ‘‘ Children as children have not right unto Baptisme’’; and ‘It be- 
longs not to any Predecessors, either neerer or further off removed from the next Parents, ka@ auto 
and firstly, to give right of this priviledge to their Children.”’ A child cannot be baptized on its 
grandparent’s church membership. Hooker is far from favoring what was afterwards to be known 
as the Zal/-way covenant position. 

8 Survey, Pt. 3, pp. 33-46. Hooker holds that the offence must first be laid before the elders 
and it rests with them to decide whether it is of sufficient importance to lay before the church. If 
unimportant, the elders may dismiss the complaint, though the complainant may, at risk of personal 
censure if unsustained, appeal from them to the brethren. But if weighty, the elders are to exam- 
ine into the case, recording the accusation exactly and confining the disputants to the points at 
issue. This preliminary sifting of evidence is to be made by the elders “ because the body of the 
people, if numerous, they will be unable with any comely conveniency, to conzs¢der and weigh adlZ 
the circumstances, with all the emerging difficulties,” p. 36, 37. But the elders are not to pass 
sentence without the consent of the brethren. ‘‘ Thus the preparation is done, the cause rightly 

stated and cleered, doubts answered, mistakes removed, and by proofs fair and sufficient, the truth 
confirmed [all this by the elders]; now the cause is ready and ripe for judgement, and may easily 


146 HOOKER’S CONGREGATIONALISM, 1645 


Whilst the Church remains a true Church of Christ, it doth 
not loose this power, nor can it lawfully be taken away.’ 

Consociation of Churches should be used, as occasion doth 
require.” 





be determined in half an hour, which cost many weeks [to the elders] in the search and examina- 
tion thereof. 

The Execution of the sentence issues in four things. 

First, the cawse exactly recorded, is as fully and nakedly to be presented to the considera- 
tion of the Congregation. 

Secondly, the E/ders are to goe before the Congregation in laying open the rule, so far as 
reacheth any particular now to be considered, and to exfresse their udgement and determiina- 
tzon thereof, so far as appertains to thentselves. 

Thirdly, unlesse the people be able to convince them of errour and mistakes in their sen- 
tence, they are dound to joyn their judgement with thetrs, to the compleating of the sentence. 

Fourthly, the sentence, thus compleatly issued, is to be solemnly passed and pronounced 
upon the Delinquent dy the ruling Elder, whether it be the censure of admonition or excommutu- 
nication,” p. 38. It will be seen that Hooker’s position is distinctly, though mildly, Barrowist. 

1 Survey, Pt. 3, pp. 40-46. Some of his considerations are the following: ‘* The fraternity 
have no more power to oppose the sentence of the censure, thus prepared and propounded by 
the Elders, then they have to oppose their doctrine which they shall publish. But they have as 
much power to oppose the one as the other. . . . Since then it is yeelded on all hands, ¢haz 
the fraternity may renounce and condemn the false, errontous and hereticall Doctrines of an 
Elder. . . and take away his Office from him: they may do as much by parity of reason 
against his false and unjust censures propounded and concluded, and so interpose and oppose 
proceeding, as that they shall never take place and be established in the Congregation . . . The 
conclusion then is, The /raterxzty put for th a [forth a] causall ower in the censure of excOmu- 
nication, whence it receives its compleat being, axd here lyes the supream Tribunal in poynt of 
judgement.’ pp. 41-43. Hooker holds that the church may proceed against any of its elders as 
against any other of its membership, though what preliminary steps shall be taken in the ‘‘prepara- 
tion’’ of the case he does not explain. ‘‘In case the Elders offend, and are complained of, to 
whom must the complaint be carried? the text saith, To the Church . . . and let it be sup- 
posed that where there be three Elders, two of them should turn Hereticks and continue so ; how 
could the Church proceed against them, unlesse there wasa causadl power in the fraternity to 
accomplish this censure?’’ p. 44. Perhaps Hooker’s view of the relation of the church to its offi- 
cers is most clearly brought out in a comparison which he draws between it and a city corporation : 
‘* The power of judgement and power of office are apparently d7stinct and different one from 
another: The Elders in poynt of rude and exercising the act of their Office, are supream, and 
above the Congregation ; none have that Office-authority, nor can put forth the acts thereof but 
themselves: But in Joynt of power of judgement or censure, the fraternity they are supream, 
and above any member or Officer, in case of offence or delinquency: nor need any man strange at 
this distinction, when the like is daily obvious in paralel examples presented before our eyes. The 
Lord Major is above the Court, as touching the wayes and works of his Office, none hath right, 
nor can put forth such acts, which are peculiar to his place, and yet the Court is above in poynt of 
censure, and can answerably proceed to punish in a just way, according to the just desert of his 
sin. Thus the Parliament is above the King, the Souldiers and Captains above their Generall.’’ 
Pt. 3, Pp. 45. 

2 The whole matter of Synods and Councils is discussed in part 4 of the Survey. Unfortu- 
nately the author left this portion of his work in a fragmentary condition, but his meaning is clear. 
By ‘‘consociation of churches,’’ Hooker did not signify the peculiar institution later known by that 
name in Connecticut, but what modern Congregationalism calls advisory councils. His views are 
summed up in the following statement: ‘‘ The truth is, A particular Congregation ts the highest 
Tribunall, unto which the gretved party may appeal in the third place; [omit ;] if private 
Councell, or the witnesse of two have seemed to proceed too much sharpely and with too much 
rigour against him[;] before the Tribunal of the Church, the cause may easily be scanned and 
sentence executed according to Christ. // difficulties arise in the proceeding, the Couzsell of 
other Churches should be sought to clear the truth: but the Power of Censure rests still in the 
Congregation where Christ plcaed [placed] it.’’ Pt. 4, p. 19, 


Lee) OFTHE GeaRINCIELES 147 


Such consociations and Synods’ have allowance to counsell 
and admonish other Churches, as the case may require. 

And if they grow obstinate in errour or sinfull miscarriages, 
they should renounce the right hand of fellowship with them.’ 

But they have no power to excommunicate.’ 

Nor do their constitutions binde formalitér & juridice.* 


1 In a paper of Hooker’s composition, found in his study, and printed as an appendix to the 
Survey, a Synod is thus defined: ‘* A Synod is an Ecclesiasticall meeting, consisting of fit persons, 
called by the Churches, and sent as their messengers, to discover and determine of doubtfull cases, 
either in Doctrine or practise, according to the truth.’ Pt. 4, p. 45. In such a Synod or council, 
‘‘all have equall power, because equally sent and chosen, which are the substantiall ingredients to 
make up Synodicall members.’ /ézd., 46. 

2" The renouncing the right hand of fellowshif, which other Churches may do, and 
should do as occasion requires, is axother thing from excommunication . . . any Christian 
man or wonan may, upon Just grounds, resect the right hand of fellowship with [with] 
others, whom they cannot excommunicate. In a word, there may bea Zotad/ separation, where 
there is 20 excommunication, Because excommunication is a sentence judiciall, presuppoung 
[presupposing] ever a solemn and superior power over the party sentenced ; but no such thing in 
separation, or vezection.’’ Pt. 4, pp. 23, 24. 

8 That there should be Synods, which have Potestatem jsuridicam, is no where proved in 
Scripture, because it is not a truth.’”’ Appended paper, Survey, Pt. 4, pp. 48, 40. 

4°“ They [Synods and Councils] have no power to impose their Canons or Conclusions 
upon them |the Churches|. 1. Because the Churches power is above them, in that they sent 
them. 2. Because the Churches have power to call another Synod, and send other Messengers, and 
passe sentence against them [i. e., decide against the members of the first council]. 3. Because in 
many cases 1t may injoyne a man to beleeve contradictions. As suppose a man under one Prov- 
ince, which hath determined a case one way, and therefore he must beleeve that [provided Synods 
can ‘*binde formaliter’’]: He removes himselfe the next month or week into another Province, 
and they have determined a contrary Conclusion, and he must beleeve that.’’ /ézd., 54. ‘‘ But if 
Synods and such meetings be attended onely in way of consultation, as having no other power, nor 
meeting for any other end: Then as they are lawfull, so the root of them lyes in a common prin- 
ciple which God in providence hath appointed for humane proceeding, and that is, He that 
hearkens to counsell shall be safe. In the multitude of councellers there is safety. Hence all con- 
ditions and callings, as they need, so they use a Combination of counsell, for the carrying on of 
their occasions under their hand. Hence arise the Companies of Merchants, and all men of all 
Crafts. Hence Common Councels in all Kingdomes and States, And therefore in the Course of 
Christianity also the Churches of Christ should use the means, which God hath appointed for 
their more confortable and succesfull proceeding in a Church-way. And hence one Church may 
send to another, or to many, and that severally or joyntly meeting.”’ /dzd., p. 61. Hooker’s gen- 
eral theory of the independence and communion of churches is perhaps best expressed in the fol- 
lowing passage: ‘‘ When this Church is said to be /xdependent, we must know 


That INDEPEN- } 1. Either an absolute Supremacy, and then it is opposed to swsordination. 
DENCY implies + 2. Or else a suffictency in its kind, for the attainment of its end, and so its 
two things; opposed to zzperfection. 


Take ¢hat word in the first sence, so a particular Church or Congregation ts not abso- 
lutely supreame: For its subject unto, and under the supreme power politicke in the place 
where it is; so that the Magistrate hath a coactive power to compel the Church to execute the 
ordinances of Christ, according to the order and rules of Christ, given to her in that behalfe in his 
holy Word ; and in case she swerves from her rule, by a strong hand to constraine her to keepe it. 
Hee is a nursing Father thus to the Church, to make her attend that wholesome dyet which is 
provided and set out, as her share and portion in the Scripture. Nay, should the supream Magis- 
trate unjustly oppresse or persecute, she must be subject, and meekly according to justice, beare 
that which is unjustly inflicted. Againe, she 1s so farre swdyect to the consoctation of Churches, 
that.she is bound, in case of doubt and difficulty, to crave their counsell, and if it be according to 
God, to follow it: and if she shall erre from the rule, and continue obstinate therein, they have 
authority to renounce the right hand of fellowship with her. In the second sence, the Church 
may be said to be /udependent, namely sufficient to attaine her end; and therefore hath com- 


148 HOOKER’S CONGREGATIONALISM, 1645 


In all these I have leave to professe the joint judgement of all the 
Lilders upon the river :* Of New-haven,’ Guilford,* Milford,’ Strat- 
ford,® Fairfield*: azd of most of the Elders of the Churches in the 
Bay,’ to whom L£ did send in particular, and did receive approbation 
Srom them, under thetr hands: Of the rest (to whom I could not send) 
L cannot so affirm ; but this I can say, That at a common meeting,* 7 
was destred by them all, to publish what now TI do. 





pleat power, being rightly constituted, to exercise all the ordinances of God. As ad? Arts are thus 
sompleat in their kixde, and have a compleat sufficiency in themselves to attaine their owne end ; 
and yez are truely said to be subordinate each to the other in their workes. Ze Word, then, in its 
faire and inoffensive sence, imports thus much, Every particular Congregation, rightly consti- 
tuted and compleated, hath sufficiency in it selfe, to exercise all the ordinances of Christ.” 
Mant, PP. 79;80. 

1 I, e.,on the Connecticut. These churches were Hartford, under Hookerand Samuel Stone ; 
Windsor, under John Warham; Wethersfield, under Henry Smith; Springfield, Mass., under 
George Moxon ; and Old Saybrook, under James Fitch, 

2 Under John Davenport and William Hooke. 

3 Under Henry Whitfield and John Higginson, the latter later of Salem. 

+ Under Peter Prudden. 

5 Under Adam Blakeman. 

8 Under John Jones. 

7 T.e., of Massachusetts Colony. 

8 At Cambridge, July 1, 1645; see azze, p. 141. 


IX 
THE WINDSOR CREED-COVENANT, 1647 


The extant contemporary record of this document is contained in a note-book 
of Deacon Matthew Grant of Windsor, now in the possession of Dr. J. H. Trum- 
bull of Hartford. It has been printed in the Congregational Quarterly, Vol. IV, 


pp. 168, 169 (April, 1862). 


HE members of the church which ultimately found its resting 
place at Windsor, Connecticut, were originally part of a 
company organized in the west-of-England counties of Devon, 
Dorset, and Somerset, in 1629 and 1630. This was a region where 
the influence of Rev. John White, the distinguished Puritan of 
Dorchester, had long been felt; and he was doubtless largely in- 
strumental in bringing together the adventurers in the enter- 
prise. The personal following of Rev. John Warham, a Puritan 
minister of the Established Church at Exeter, formed a considera- 
ble portion of the body.? Their church organization was effected, 
unlike that of any other of the Puritan churches of New England, 
before leaving English shores, at Plymouth, where the company 
had gathered preparatory to sailing;* and there John Warham 


1 Our informant regarding the early history of this company is Capt. Roger Clap, one of its 
original members, whose Meszozrs, written after 1676, in his old age, for the instruction of his 
children, were first printed at Boston in 1731. They have since been a number of times repub- 
lished ; in 1844 by the Dorchester, Mass., Antiquarian and Historical Society, at Boston. The more 
essential portions are given by Young, Chroz. . . . Mass., pp. 344-367. 

The general history of the company and the church, both in their early experiences and later 
story, may be found in the Dorchester Ant. and Hist. Society’s H7st. of the Town of Dorchester, 
Boston, 1859; Stiles’ Hzst. of Anctent Windsor, New York, 1859 (a new edition is just out); 
and Messrs. Tuttle, Wilson, and Hayden’s contributions to the history of Windsor in Trumbull’s 
Memorial History of Hartford County, Boston, 1886, II: 497-560. The 250th Anniversary of 
the church in 1880 was commemorated by a sketch of the church’s history by its late pastor, Rev. 
G. C. Wilson, Record of the Services held at the Cong. Ch. of Windsor, Conn., tn celebration of 
tts 250th Anniv. Mch. 30, 1880, [Hartford] 1880, pp. 8-35. 

2 Roger Clap’s Memoirs, pp. 18,19. Young, Chron. . . . Mass., p. 346. 

3 Jb7d., p.39: ‘* These godly People resolved to live together; and therefore as they had 
made choice of those two Revd. Servants of God, Mr. John Warham and Mr. John Maverick to 
be their Ministers, so they kept a solemn Day of Fasting in the New Hosfital in Plymouth, in 
England, spending it in Preaching and Praying: where that worthy Man of God, Mr. Johz 
White of Dorchester, in Dorset, was present, and Preached unto us the Word of God in the fore- 
part of the Day; and in the latter part of the Day, as the People did solemnly make Choice of, 


(149 ) 


150 THE WINDSOR CREED-COVENANT, 1647 


was chosen and installed as pastor, and John Maverick as teacher.’ 
After a voyage lasting from March 20 to May 30, 1630, the com- 
pany landed at Nantasket, and within a few days after their ar- 
rival took up their abode at Mattapan, soon to be known as Dor- 
chester, in memory of the home of their friend and promoter, Rev. 
John White. 

The coming of the Dorchester company was followed in a 
few days by the arrival in Massachusetts Bay of the emigrants 
who accompanied Winthrop, and the settlements thus begun were 
rapidly multiplied by fresh Puritan arrivals during the years fol- 
lowing 1630. One of the chiefest of these later companies was 
that which settled at Mt. Wollaston and then at Newtown (the 
later Cambridge, Mass.). This company, like that of Dorchester, 
had a distinct unity and character. Its church enjoyed, from 1633 
onward, the ministrations of Thomas Hooker and Samuel Stone; 





and call these godly Ministers to be their Officers, so also the Revd. Mr. Warham and Mr. Mav- 
erick did accept thereof, and expressed the same.’? When Dr. Samuel Fuller of Plymouth, Mass., 
met Warham soon after his landing on these shores, he found Warham’s views as to the composition 
of a church not quite so strenuous as those of the majority of Puritans who came to New England: 
‘Mr. Warham holds that the invisible [visible] church may consist of a mixed people, godly and 
openly ungodly.”’ Bradford’s Letter-book, 7 Col7. Mass. Hist. Soc., 11:74. But the practice of the 
church cannot have much differed from that of other New England churches, for it was not till after 
the settlers had arrived at Dorchester that Roger Clap, though a member of the company before 
leaving England, was admitted to the church: ‘t‘ After God had brought me into this Country, He 
was pleased to give me Room in the Hearts of his Servants, so that I was admitted into the Church 
Fellowship at the first beginning in Dorchester, in the year 1630.’ Memozrs, p. 24. 

1 John Warham, for one so prominently associated with the early history of a company of 
settlers of mark in Massachusetts and Connecticut, is very little known. The fact that he lived till 
1670 shows that he must have been comparatively young when he came to America. Before leav- 
ing England he had been a successful minister of the Establishment at Exeter. Mather, in one of 
his most padded biographies, records his supposition that Warham was ‘‘ the first preacher that 
ever thus preached with notes in our New-England’’: but the passage is so obscure that 
the writer feels by no means clear whether Mather meant that Warham was the first to preach 
from notes, or as Judge Davis interpreted it, the first to preach from notes in a free and natural 
manner (Davis’ ed. Morton’s Alesnorzal, Boston, 1826, p. 482) ; Mather also declares that he was 
so subject to melancholy as to deny himself the Lord’s Supper when offering it to others. He 
attended at least one of the sessions of the Cambridge Synod of 1646-48 ; and was sent to the meet- 
ing of 1657 at Boston, by the Connecticut General Assembly. He died April 1, 1670. See Mather, 
Magnalia, ed. 1853-5, 1: 441, 442; Young, Chron. . . . Mass., pp.347, 348 (where a few fur- 
ther references may be found); Allen, 47. 8zog. Dict., 3d ed., p. 820; Sprague, Axnals Amz. 
Pulpit, 1: 10, 11 ; Wilson, in Memorial Hist. Hartford County, Boston, 1886, II : 534-538. 

John Maverick is even less known than Warham. Roger Clap, in his Memoirs, speaks of 
him as ‘‘ Mr. Maverick, who lived forty miles off” [i.e., from Exeter, England], Young, Chroz. 

Mass., p. 347; and Winthrop in recording his death under date of Feb. 3, 1636, speaks of 
him as ‘‘ being near sixty years of age.’’ Savage’s ed., 1: 216. He must therefore have been con- 
siderably older than Warham. Winthrop fixes his office as that of ‘‘teacher of the church of Dor- 
chester,’’ and speaks of him as ‘‘a man of a very humble spirit, and faithful in furthering the work 
of the Lord here, both in the churches and civil state.’’ 747d. His death prevented his emigration 
toConn. The facts regarding Maverick may be found in W. H. Sumner’s Ast. of Last Boston, 
Boston, 1858, pp. 57-68. 


SETTLEMENT OF CONNECTICUT I5I 


and its chief layman, John Haynes, was of sufficient honor to be 
chosen governor of the Massachusetts Colony in 1635. It need 
be no matter of surprise therefore that, united as were all the 
Puritan settlements about the Bay in the main purpose of their 
enterprise, a certain degree of restlessness should be felt on ac- 
count of the close proximity in location of different companies, 
each possessing a distinct individuality and each believing its 
ministers and prominent laymen to be the superiors of any in the 
Colony. In the case of the Newtown company, at least, there is 
much reason to believe that the views of Hooker led to a more 
democratic conception of the true character of civil government, 
and an unwillingness to limit the franchise to church-members, 
which put the company in a measure out of sympathy with most of 
its fellows in Massachusetts. Whether their divergences were 
publicly expressed or not, unrest existed.’ By May, 1634, the 
Newtown (Cambridge) people were complaining to the General 
Court of insufficiency of land, and during the following months 
were sending spies to examine into the character of the soil along 
the Connecticut.” In September of that year the people of New- 
town were before the General Court once more, this time witha 
formal demand to be allowed to go to Connecticut.’ The matter 
was compromised at the time, and the proposed emigration de- 
layed ; but adventurous spirits were already finding their way to 
the river,* and by 1635 the outflow of permanent settlers from 
Massachusetts to Connecticut was large. In the autumn of that 


year many of the people of Dorchester journeyed across the wilder- 


1 Compare G. L. Walker, Hist. First Ch. in Hartford, pp. 73-83; Thomas Hooker, pp. 
82-90; I. N. Tarbox in Memorial Hist. Hartford County, 1: 19-28; Palfrey, 7st. of New Eng- 
land, 1: 446. 

2 Winthrop, Savage’s ed., 1853, 1: 157, 162; Recordsof . . . Mass. Bay, 1: 119. 

3 Winthrop, I: 166-170. Winthrop notes ‘tthe main business, which spent the most time, 
and caused the adjourning of the court [to Sept. 25], was about the removal of Newtown.” It 
did not get into the Colonial Records, probably because compromised for the time-being. ‘‘ This 
matter was debated divers days, and many reasons alleged pro and con. The principal reasons for 
their removal were: 1. Their want of accommodation for their cattle . . . 2. The fruitfulness 
and commodiousness of Connecticut, and the danger of having it possessed by others, Dutch or 
English. 3. The strong bent of their spirits to remove thither.’’ Doubtless the last-mentioned 
was the most important. 

4 The beginnings of settlement from Watertown in what is now Wethersfield were made in 
1634. S. W. Adams, in Memorial Hist. Hartford County, 11: 435, 436. Andrews, River Towns 
of Connecticut, Johns Hopkins Hist. Studies, Ser. V11: 7-9, pp. 13-17. 


152 THE WINDSOR CREED-COVENANT, 1647 


ness and settled in what is now Windsor, Conn.; and with them 
came, it would appear, some of Hooker and Stone’s congregation 
from Newtown to join those straggling settlers who had begun, 
during the summer of 1635, to break the soil of the later Hart- 
ford.* The prior claims of the Dutch and of Plymouth Colony 
were practically disregarded,’ the new settlers, though still viewed 
as under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts,* felt that they were 
building for themselves and their kindred. But the year 1636 was 
the time of greatest exodus. With the opening spring Hooker 
and Stone, with the major portion of the Newtown church, made 
their way to Hartford,* while not far from the same time, perhaps 
a little earlier than those of Newtown, many of the Dorchester 
colonists,” and with them probably their pastor, John Warham,’ 
joined those of their number who had wintered on the Windsor 
soil. It would-be clearly too much to affirm, as some have done, 


that there was here the emigration of three organized towns to 





1 Winthrop, I: 204, under date of Oct. 15. For the return of some see /ézd., p. 207 (Nov. 26), 
and 208, 209 (Dec. 10). Winthrop does not expressly describe this company as from Dorchester, 
hence some have held it to be from Newtown. It was probably from both, but largely from the 
former, since under date of April 1, 1636, Winthrop records that a great part of the church at Dor- 
chester had already gone to Connecticut, and that those who had taken their cattle before winter 
had lost nearly the value of £2,000, p. 219. ‘These in all probability are the ‘‘ cows, horses, and 
swine,’’ to which he refers under date of Oct. 15. See Tarbox, in Memorial Hist. Hartford 
County, 1:34, 35. Andrews, River Towns, 19-23. 

2 The Dutch captain, Adriaen Block, had sailed up the Connecticut as far as Windsor in 
1614. A doubtful tradition had it that the Dutch had begun a fort at Hartford as early as 1623. 
They certainly purchased land of the Indians June 8, 1633, and completed their fort. In the same 
year, 1633, the people of Plymouth erected a trading post in Windsor. See Savage’s Winthrop, 
1: 134, 135; Bradford, Hzst. Plym. Plant., 311-314; O’Callaghan, Hist. of New Netherland, 
2d ed., New York, 1855, I: 150-155 ; Brodhead, H7st. of State of New York, 1853, 1: 56, 234, 235; 
Tarbox, in MWemortal Hist. Hartford County, 1: 15-18. 

3 The Mass. General Court, at its session of March 3, 1636, issued a commission in which it 
rehearsed the facts that ‘‘dyv [divers] of ct loveing ffriends, neighbrs, ffreemen & members of Newe 
Towne, Dorchest', Waterton, & other places, whoe are resolved to transplant themselues & their estates 
vnto the Ryver of Conecticott, there to reside & inhabite, & to that end dyv*s are there already, & 
dyv's others shortly to goe’’* and appointed a commission of eight to govern the settlements on the 
river for a year from date. Records . . . Mass. Bay, 1:170,171. As these eight commis- 
sioners were all settlers upon the river, their rule naturally passed without friction into self-govern- 
ment on or before the expiration of the allotted year, it having become evident that however it 
might be with Springfield (to which colony of 1636 two of the commissioners belonged) the three 
lower settlements were outside of Massachusetts jurisdiction. 

4 Winthrop, I: 223, under date of May 31, 1636, records: ‘‘ Mr. Hooker, pastor of the church 
of Newtown, and the most of his congregation, went to Connecticut. His wife was carried in a 
horse litter ; and they drove one hundred and sixty cattle, and fed of their milk by the way.” 

5 See above, note 1. 

8 Whether Warham came to Connecticut in the autumn of 1635 or the spring of 1636 isa 
disputed point ; the probabilities seem to favor the latter supposition. See Andrews, River Towns, 
21,22. Maverick would doubtless have joined in the emigration had he not been prevented by 
death, Feb. 3, 1636. Winthrop, I: 216. 


CHARACTER OF THE SETTLEMENT . 153 


Connecticut;’ but in the case of two of the three companies, Wind- 
sor and Hartford, there was a transfer of church organization, 
so that new ecclesiastical institutions had to be established on 
the soil which they had left.* The present first churches of Wind- 
sor and Hartford are no product of Connecticut soil, the one 
traces its continuous existence back to the shores of Massachu- 
setts Bay, the other beyond the ocean to the New Hospital at 
Plymouth. 

The colony thus established showed itself from the first self- 
reliant and creative. Though closely allied to Massachusetts, its 
civil and ecclesiastical development has always had a distinct 
character.* And though by reason of numbers, wealth, and the 
ability of its inhabitants, Hartford became the leader of the 
three original river towns, Windsor has shared in all that is pecu- 
liar in Connecticut story. 

It was eleven years after the full establishment of the Windsor 
church in its Connecticut domicile that the Creed-Covenant now 
under consideration was adopted. Of the immediate circumstan- 
ces we know nothing, and we are ignorant also as to the possession 
by the church of any statement of belief previous to this time. 
Had any been in use (a matter more than doubtful), it has com- 
pletely disappeared. The Creed-Covenant of Oct. 23, 1647, is 
the oldest symbol of the Windsor church which exists; not only 
so, it is the oldest symbol at all answering to what modern usage 





1 The view that the settlers of Connecticut came into the land as ‘‘three distinct and indi- 
vidual town organizations’’ was advocated by the late Prof, Alexander Johnston in his Genes7s of 
a New England State, Johns Hopkins Studies, 1 Series, 11 (Sept., 1883); and his Connecticut, 
American Commonwealths Series, Boston, 1887, pp. 11, 12. It has, however, been successfully 
challenged by Hon. Mellen Chamberlain in his Remarks on the New Historical School, Proc, 
Mass. Hist. Soc., Jan., 1890 ; and Dr. Charles M. Andrews in his Origin of Connecticut Towns, 
Annals Am. Acad. Political and Social Science, Oct., 1890. 

2 The learned introduction to the Records of the First Ch. at Dorchester, Boston, 1891, 
shows that only a part of the Dorchester members went to Windsor, and holds that ‘‘ whether the 
Windsor party went as a church organization or simply as a colony of fellow church members is 
not known.’’ But it does not set aside the fact that a reorganization of the Dorchester church had 
to take place after the Windsor emigration. The Newtown emigrants certainly went to Hartford 
as an organization, and it would need considerable evidence in rebuttal to show that the Windsor 
settlers did not also. The presumption is certainly that they did. 

3 As illustrations of some of these peculiarities I may cite the fact that Connecticut (as dis- 
tinct from Massachusetts and New Haven), never made church-membership a condition of voting 
citizenship ; the Consociational system of Connecticut church government never found a home in 
Massachusetts ; on the other hand, Connecticut has never welcomed Massachusetts Unitarianism. 

II 


154 THE WINDSOR CREED-COVENANT, 1647 


calls a “confession of faith,” to be found in Connecticut ; and one 
of the earliest church creeds of New England. But while we do 
not know the exact circumstances of its adoption, we have vari- 
ous hints which enable us to form a conjecture as to what was 
passing in the pastor’s mind. The growing Presbyterianism of 
England and the need of some recognized standards of doctrine 
and polity at home had led to the calling of the celebrated Cam- 
bridge Synod in 1646,— the body which was to put forth, in 1648, 
the Cambridge Platform.’ Two sessions of that assembly had al- 
ready been held, in Sept., 1646, and in June, 1647 ; and Mr. War- 
ham had been present at the latter. On his return he had 
preached, August 15, a sermon based in large part on Hooker’s 
then unpublished Swzvvey,? in which he had entered at length into 
discussion of the constitution of a true church. It is plain, there- 
fore, that questions of doctrine and polity were uppermost in the 
Windsor pastor’s mind during the summer and autumn months of 
-1647,and this Creed-Covenant was the natural outcome. 

The Creed-Covenant is of course Calvinistic in point of view, 
but its non-polemic tone is noticeable. Of the distinctive doc- 
trines of Calvinism only that of the perseverence of the saints is 
made at all conspicuous. It is distinctly Congregational in its 
assertion of the necessity of the local organization by covenant ; 
while its concluding section is the covenant proper, by which 
the believers at Windsor promised to walk in fellowship with one 
another. Probably Warham would have been far from claiming 
that this creed covered the range of Christian doctrine. But it 
certainly contains, in simple phrase, the essentials of the Gospel, 
redemption from sin through repentance and faith in the atoning 
work of Christ, and a life of love toward God and our neighbor 
through the strength which comes from Him. 


THE WINDSOR CREED-COVENANT, 1647. 


1. We believe though God made man in an holy and blessed 
condition, yet by his fall he hath plunged himself and all his pos- 
terity into a miserable state.— Rom. ili: 23; v: 12. 

1 See following chapter. 


2 See note by Dr. Trumbull, Coxg. Quarterly, 1V: 168 (April, 1862). 
3 [bid, 


TEXT OF THE CREED—COVENANT 155 


2.- Yet God hath provided a sufficient remedy in Christ for 
all broken hearted sinners that are loosened from their sins and 
selves and world, and are enabled by faith to look to Him in Christ, 
for mercy, inasmuch as Christ hath done and suffered for such 
whatever His justice requires to atonement and life; and He doth 
accept His merits and righteousness for them that believe in Him, 
and imputeth it to them to their justification, as if they had satis- 
fied and obeyed, themselves.— Heb. vii: 25; Mat. xi: 28; xxii: 24; 
meed,O)'T Core ieeear Om Aiv: -3/'53°V: 109: 

3. Yet we believe that there is no other name or means to 
be saved from guilt and the power of sin.— John xiv: 6; Acts iv: 12. 

4. We believe God hath made an everlasting covenant in 
Christ with all penitent sinners that rest on him in Christ, never to 
reject, or cease to'do them good.— Heb. viii: 6; vii: 22; 1 Sam. 
elie 22; | ere), X¥xiie40. 

5. We believe this covenant to be reciprocal, obliging us to 
be his people, to love, fear, obey, cleave to him, and serve him 
with all our heart, mind, and soul; as him to be our God, to love, 
choose, delight in us, and save and bless us in Christ: yea, as his 
covenant binds us to love him and his Christ for his own sake, so 
to love our brethren for his sake.— Deut. x: 12; Hos. ili: 3; 11: 
are ete xxvii Tpeto ny GaniV: 21. 

6. We believe that God’s people, besides their general cove- 
nant with God, to walk in subjection to him, and Christian love to 
all his people, ought also to join themselves into a church covenant 
one with another, and to enter into a particular combination to- 
gether with some of his people to erect a particular ecclesiastical 
body, and kingdom, and visible family and household of God, for 
the managing of discipline and public ordinances of Christ in one 
place in a dutiful way, there to worship God and Christ, as his 
visible kingdom and subjects, in that place waiting on him for that 
blessing of his ordinances and promises of his covenant, by hold- 
ing communion with him and his people, in the doctrine and dis- 
cipline of that visible kingdom, where it may be attained.— Rom. 
Reneeo-t COr, xii; 27,28; Ephes. iv: 11,12; Acts 11: 475) Exod: 
mien AS; Gen. xvii: 13; Isa. xxiil: 4. 

7. We for ourselves, in the sense of our misery by the fall 
and utter helplessness elsewhere, desire to renounce all other sav- 
iours but his Christ, and to rest on God in him alone, for all happi- 
ness, and salvation from all misery; and do here bind ourselves, in 
the presence of men and angels, by his grace assisting us, to choose 


156 THE WINDSOR CREED-COVENANT, 1647 


the Lord, to serve him, and to walk in all his ways, and to keep all 
his commandments and ordinances, and his Christ to be our king, 
priest and prophet, and to receive his gospel alone for the rule of 
our faith and manners, and to [be] subject to the whole will of 
Christ so far as we shall understand it; and bind ourselves in spe- 
cial to all the members of this body, to walk in reverend subjection 
in the Lord to all our superiours, and in love, humility, wisdom, 
peaceableness, meekness, inoffensiveness, mercy, charity, spiritual 
helpfulness, watchfulness, chastity, justice, truth, self-denial, one 
to another, and to further the spiritual good one of another, by 
example, counsel, admonition, comfort, oversight, according to 
God, and submit or[selves] subject unto all church administration 


in the Lord. 
FINIS, 


xX 
THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM, 
1646-1648 
TEXT AND REPRINTS 


A. THE TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS RESPECTING THE POWER OF MAGISTRATES 
AND THE NATURE OF SYNODS, 1646 | 

I. The Result | of a | Synod | at | Cambridge | in | New-England, | Anno. 
1646. | Concerning | The Power of Magistrates in mat- | ters of the First Table, 
| Mature & Power of Synods ; | and other matters thereun- | to belonging. | Lon- 
don | Printed by M.S, for John Allen | and Francis Eglesfield in Pauls | Church- 
ward. 054. 10° pprit, 76; 

II. <A second edition was issued at London in 1655. 


B. THE CAMBRIDGE PLATFORM, 1648 


The manuscript is in the possession of the American Antiquarian Society, Wor- 
cester, Mass. 


I. A Platform of Church Discipline . . . Printed by S{amuel] Glreen] 
at Cambridge in New England . . . r649.' 4° pp. x, 32. 


Il. A Platform of Church Discipline [etc.| London, 1653? (Suppressed as 
incorrect by Edward Winslow.)? 

Ill. A Platform of Church Discipline [etc.]| Printed in New-England ,; 
and Reprinted in London [etc.] 16537. (With two pages of preface by Edward Wins- 
low.) 4° pp. vi, viii, 30. 

IV. A Platform [etc.]| Cambridge: Printed by Marmaduke Johnson, 16712. 
4° pp. xii, 34. 

V. At Boston in 1680, with the first edition of the Com/fesston of that year. 

VI. At Boston in 1699 in English and Indian, with the Confession of 1680.? 

VII. At Boston 1701. With an appendix of five pages on Congregational 
practices and principles.4 8° pp. xxv, 64, 6. Reprinted for Boston First Church. 

VIII. In Mather, Magnalia, London, 1702. Ed. Hartford, 1853-5, II: 
211-236. 

EX -In Indian, 1704.5 

X. At New Vork, 1711. A reprint of the Boston edition of 1701.° 

ele) 17132 Boston ?? 

ML Boston, 1717, 8° pp. xvi, 40.° 


1 Full title in connection with the reprint of the text of the P/at/orm, at the close of this 
chapter. 

2 Dexter, Cong. as seen, Bibliography No. 1631. 

3 Catalogue of Coll. of Mr. Brayton Ives, New York, 1891, No. 145. 

4 Brinley Sale Catalogue, Hartford 1878, Nos. 737, 5878. 5 Dexter, /ézd., No. 1507. 

6 Brinley Cat., 3382. 7 Dexter, /4zd., No. 1635. ® Brinley Cat., 5879. 


(157) 


158 THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


XIII. In Zhe Results of Three Synods (i. e., 1646-8, 1662, 1679). Boston, 
1725. 16° pp. ii, vi, 118. [Platform, pp. 1-49. ] 

xy. Boston, 173%2 

xvs, Boston, 1749. 16° pp. 34: 

XVI. Boston, 1757, with Confession of 1680.? 

XVII. Boston, 1772, with Wise, Vindication of the Government of N. £. 
Churches. 

XVIM. Boston, 1808, 12° pp. 7o. 

x. Boston,. 1819, 12° ppeermge 2: 

XX. In The Discipline Practised in the Churches of New England, Whit- 
church, Shropshire, Eng., 1823. 12° pp. xxiv, 130. 

XXI. In The Cambridge and Saybrook Platforms. . . with the Confes- 
sion of . . + 4080; and thevfieads of Agreement . « « 000. “Boston: 
1529, 12° pp. iv, 132;. Platformyeiged7. 

XXII. In Congregational Order. The Ancient Platforms of the Congrega- 
tional Churches of New England [etc.| Published by Direction of the Generat 
Association of Connecticut. Middletown, 1843, 12° pp. x, 351; with Saybrook Con- 
fession, Articles, and the Heads of Agreement, etc. Platform, pp. 73-152.3 

XXIII. In Report on Congregationalism, including a Manual of Church 
Discipline, together with the Cambridge Platform, adopted in 1648, and the Confes- 
ston of Faith, adopted in 1680. Boston, 1846, 18° pp. vi, 128. Platform, pp. 47-85.4 

XXIV. Reprint of the Platform and Confession from the edition of 1846, 
Boston, 1850. 

XXV. The Cambridge Platform [etc.] and the Confession . . . 1680, to 
which is prefixed a Platform of Ecclesiastical Government, by Nath. Emmons. 
Boston, 1855, 12° pp. ii, 20, 84. 


SOURCES 

I. Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay. Boston, 
1853-4, Il: 154-156, 200, 285; III: 70-73, 177, 178, 204, 235, 236, 240. 

II. Winthrop, History of New England (Journal), Savage’s ed. Boston, 
1853, IL: 323, 324, 329-332, 338, 376, 402, 403. 

III. The sources are well epitomized in Felt, Ecclestastical History of New 
England, Boston, 1855, 1862, I: 570-574, 577-579, 597, 598, 601, 602, 613; II: 
5, 6, 16, 18, 19, 45, 46, 96, 97. 


LITERATURE 

Among the various accounts of the Synod and Platform by later writers the fol- 
‘lowing may be pointed out : 

I. Hubbard, General History of New England (written about 1680). Boston, 
1848, pp. 532-540. 

II. Mather, JZagnatia, London, 1702, Ed. Hartford, 1853-5, Il: 207-211, 
237-272 passin. 

1 7é7d., 7465. 2 Jézd., 7466. 

3 Dexter notes 3 editions of Cong. Order. Hartford, [1842]; Middletown, 1843; 1845. Cong. 
as seen, Bibl. No. 5633. 

4 By a Committee of which Drs. Leonard Woods, Heman Humphrey, Thomas Snell, Thomas 
Shepard, Timothy Cooley, R. S. Storrs, and Rev. Parsons Cooke were the members, appointed in 
May, 1844, by a meeting of Congregational ministers in Boston. The story 1s told by Dexter, Cong. 
as seen, pp. 514, 5153; and in the report itself. 


PRESBYTERIAN ASCENDENCY IN ENGLAND 159 


Ill. Neal, History of New-England, London, 1720, 1: 272-275 (largely from 
Mather). Neal gives an abridgment of the Platform, II: 643-655. 

IV. Historical Preface to The Cambridge and Saybrook Platforms, etc., Bos- 
ton, 1829, pp. 5-12. 

V. Clark, Historical Sketch of the Congregational Churches in Massachusetts, 
Boston, 1858, pp. 39-43. 

VI. Palfrey, History of New England, Boston, 1858-64, Il: 165-186. 

VII. Dexter, Comgregationalism . . . as seen in its Literature, New 
York, 1880, pp. 435-448. 

VIII. A very unsympathetic presentation of the motives of the framers of the 
Cambridge Platform, though with but little account of the work itself, may be found 
in Mr. Brooks Adams’s Emancipation of Massachusetts, Boston, 1887, pp. 79-104. 

IX. Doyle, The English in America, The Puritan Colonies, London, 1887, 


IT: gI-94. 


ie has already been pointed out in a previous chapter,’ the 
course of events during the first half of the fifth decade of the 
seventeenth century in England was strongly in favor of Presbyteri- 
anism. Politics had forced Parliament into a union with the Scotch, 
when the arduous nature of the military struggle with the king 
had become evident; and union had signified the adoption of the 
Scotch type of church polity,—a Presbyterianism not unwelcome 
at first to a large portion of the English Puritans. The Westmin- 
ster Assembly had begun its sessions in July, 1643. Its Presby- 
terian complexion had been evident even before its coming 
together,’ and by the close of 1645 it had prepared a full scheme 
of Presbyterian government, which soon received the approval of 
Parliament in its substantial entirety. These were indeed momen- 
tous changes, and it might well be anxiously questioned by the 
Congregationalists of New England whether a Parliament which 
had seemingly brought the ecclesiastical institutions of England 
into conformity with those of Scotland* might not next proceed to 
enforce a similar uniformity in New England. 
Nor were there those wanting in New England itself who 


1 See ante, p. 136. 

2 When Cotton, Davenport, and Hooker were sounded by the Independents in Parliament in 
1642 as to whether they would put themselves in the way of appointment to the Assembly, ‘ Mr. 
Hooker liked not the business, nor thought it any sufficient call for them to go 3,000 miles to agree 
with three men (meaning those three ministers who were for independency).’’ Winthrop, II: 92. 

3 See azte, p. 136, note 2. 

4**Seemingly,’’ because, though adopted by Parliament, Presbyterian institutions were never 
successfully established in most parts of the Kingdom. 


160 THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


would have been glad to welcome Parliamentary interference in 
affairs of church and state alike. The Presbyterian movements at 
Newbury, which resulted in the meeting of ministers at Cambridge 
in 1643, have already been pointed out;' and the futility of the 
attempts made to change the views of Noyes and Parker shows 
that their convictions were such that they would be likely to look 
with favor upon Parliamentary limitation of the “ New England 
way.” Nor were they the only ministers who advocated Presby- 
terian views. Peter Hobart, the pastor at Hingham, was essentially 
a believer in the Scotch polity, at least in the internal management 
of the affairs of his own congregation.? And, in addition to these 
conscientious supporters of Presbyterianism, there is ample evi- 
dence that there were many in the Massachusetts Colony, and 
some of them men of weight in the community, who felt the limit- 
ation of the franchise*® and of the rights of baptism to those in 
church-covenant to be a grievous burden, and one which Parlia- 
mentary interference, or the free allowance of Presbyterianism, 
would speedily remove. 

An illustration of this temper of mind, and of the curiously 
mixed motives which made some look with favor on Parliamentary 
interference in the affairs of the Colony, occurred in 1645. ‘The 
people of Hingham,’ tiring of their former commander of militia, 
chose another and presented his name to the magistrates of the 
General Court for confirmation. The magistrates thought the ac- . 
tion inexpedient, and ordered the affair to rest till further consid- 
eration could be had by the Court. But the Hingham soldiery 
were not so to be put off, and again chose their new captain, Allen. 
Of course this action was opposed by the former commander, 
Eames, and some discussion took place as to the exact nature of 
the magistrate’s order. The Allen party charged Eames, before 


1 See ante, p. 137, 

2‘*Mr, Hubbert, the pastor there [at Hingham], being of a Presbyterial spirit, did manage all 
affairs without the church’s advice, which divers of the congregation not liking of, they were divided 
into two parts.’’ Winthrop, II: 288. 

3 This limitation of the franchise to church-members was peculiar to Massachusetts and New 
Haven. It did not obtain in Plymouth and Connecticut. 

4 The story is told at length by Winthrop, II: 271-313. See also Records of . . . Mas- 
sachusetts Bay (Colonial Records), III: 17-26. 


THE HINGHAM CONTROVERSY 16] 


the church, with untruth, and the minister, Peter Hobart, urged 
his instant excommunication. Eames appealed to Winthrop and 
three other magistrates for redress, and they, lending a willing ear 
to his complaints, ordered the five leaders in the renewed choice 
of Allen and the subsequent attack upon Eames, to appear and 
give surety for trial before the next General Court. It so hap- 
pened that the Rev. Mr. Hobart was brother to three of the five 
accused, a fact which doubtless accounts in part for his eagerness 
to see Eames cast out of church-fellowship ; and he now presented 
himself before the magistrates and protested in no measured terms 
against their recent action. But matters did not rest here. Five 
more of the Hinghamites were summoned, “for speaking untruths 
of the magistrates in the church,” and appeared, this time before 
Winthrop alone. They refused to give bonds, and two of them re- 
peating the refusal at a later appearance, Winthrop ordered the 
two committed. This step was warmly resented by the people of 
Hingham, who now, under the lead of their minister and to the 
number of ‘about ninety,’* presented a petition to the next Gen- 
eral Court asking that body to take cognizance of Winthrop’s acts, 
—though avoiding the mention of his name in the document. 
The matter being thus presented before the highest colonial tribu- 
nal, and Winthrop being thus charged with having exceeded the 
rightful powers of a magistrate, the case was tried by the General 
Court. The Legislature itself was much divided, but the outcome 
of the trial was that Winthrop was acquitted and the petitioners 
fined. But the sympathy of the lower house —the deputies of the 
towns —was largely against the magistrates of the upper house, 
who were felt by very many, even of the Legislature, to be too 
high handed in their general administration. 

While these proceedings had been taking place in the Court, 
the meeting of ministers from the various colonies, of which men- 
tion has been made as approving Hooker’s Survey, occurred at 
Cambridge.” Their sympathies were declaredly on the side of the 
magistrates, who had therefore proposed that their advice should 





1 The Colonial Records (Vol. III: 17) say ‘‘to the noumber of 8r.”” 
2 July 1, 1645, see azze, p. 141. 


162 THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM. 


be taken in the dispute; but this the deputies of the towns opposed 
so firmly that the proposition failed.’ But the ministers were 
brought into the dispute, nevertheless, for when Rev. Mr. Hobart 
perceived that matters were going against him, and that his oppo- 
nents at Hingham were withdrawing from his congregation, he 
called in the advice of the “elders,” who, as might be expected, 
found him to be in the wrong and sustained the magistrates. 

Under these circumstances the temper of Rev. Mr. Hobart 
and his friends at Hingham rose; and when attempt was made to 
levy the fines imposed, it was forcibly resisted. For this Rev. Mr. 
Hobart and his associates were proceeded against by the magis- 
trates, in March, 1646, and in due time brought before the “court 
of assistants.”? Here it was proved that Mr. Hobart had publicly 
“attacked the authority of the Colony by declaring, among other 
things, “That we were but as a corporation in England”; and 
“That by our patent (as he understood it) we could not put any 
man to death, nor do divers other things which we did.”* For 
this he was fined £20. 

Doubtless it has seemed to the reader that the measure dealt 
out to Mr. Hobart was hard. But the situation was certainly one 
to excite serious alarm. The danger of Parliamentary interference 
in the affairs of church and state in New England was great.. A’ 
division at home at such a time was most unfortunate; and the 
state of affairs was rendered doubly perilous by the evidence which 
the Hingham quarrel revealed, even among the church-members 


of the lower house, of restiveness under the existing state of affairs. 


1** The deputies would by no means consent thereto, for they knew that many of the elders 
understood the cause, and were more careful to uphold the honor and power of the magistrates than 
themselves well liked of.’’ Winthrop, II: 278. 

2 It need hardly be pointed out that according to the charter of 1629 the government of the 
Mass. Company consisted of a governor, deputy-governor, and assistants (the whole body popularly 
known as magistrates), chosen by the magistrates and freemen assembled in General Court each 
spring. As the freemen grew in number, their presence as a whole became impossible; in 1634, 
therefore, they were allowed to appear by deputies from each town. In 1644 the deputies and magis- 
trates were separated into two houses. In accordance with the charter the governor, deputy-gov- 
ernor, and assistants (7. e., the magistrates), could hold a judicial and legislative court whenever 
necessary between the meetings of the General Court. There was at this time no sharp distinction 
between the enactment of laws and the administration of justice in any of these courts. See, zzter 
alia, Records Mass. Bay, 1: 11, 12, 118, 119; I]: 58, 59; Hutchinson, Ast. Mass. Bay, 1: 25, 26, 
35-37; Palfrey, Hist. NV. E., 1: 371-382, 617-623: II: 8-18. 

3 Winthrop, II: 313. 


WIDE-SPREAD UNREST 163 


Nor were matters bettered by the denunciations of the acts of the 
colonial government as unauthorized, and their whole body of 
liberties as subject to Parliamentary revision, in which one of the 
ministers of the Colony had indulged. Having thus declared him- 
self, the next logical step for Mr. Hobart to take was to appeal for 
the same Parliamentary redress which might have been invoked 
against the proceedings of any English corporation; and if Parlia- 
ment once began interference no man could predict where it 
would end. 

The further step which Hobart did not take was actually 
taken by others of more determination, in a movement inimical to 
the Colony, and at one time exceedingly formidable. It is perhaps 
unwarrantable to say that this more serious attack upon the gov- 
ernment would not have been made had the Hingham affair never 
occurred, but it seems not too much to affirm that its immediate 
occasion was the excitement aroused by the course of events at 
Hingham. And while it is doubtful whether any very determined 
love of Presbyterianism, as a system of church polity, moved these 
opponents of the Massachusetts system, they were willing enough 
to welcome those features of Presbyterianism’ and of Parliament- 
ary interference which would aid them in their main purpose, the 
overthrow of existing institutions. 

This new movement? began with a neighbor of Mr. Hobart, 
William Vassall, one of the assistants of the Company named in 
-the charter of 1629; but apparently a man of discontented spirit 
always.* For some years Vassall had been a resident of Scituate, 
under the Plymouth jurisdiction ; where, indeed, no necessity of 
church-membership laid restriction upon suffrage, but where the 
usual New England customs prevailed in religious matters. His 
plan of action was simple and promised success. Taking ad- 


1 Palfrey, II: 166, calls the movement a ‘‘ Cabal of Presbyterians,’’ but as Brooks Adams has 
pointed out, Emancipation of Mass., p. 95, the proof that this was primarily a religious move- 
ment seems wanting. 

2 For its history, see Winthrop, II : 319-392, ass7m ; Hubbard, 499-518 ; Hutchinson, I: 145- 
149; Palfrey, IL: 166-179. 

3 Winthrop, II: 319, speaks of him as: ‘‘a man of a busy and factious spirit, and always op- 
posite to the civil governments of this country and the way of our churches”’; and Palfrey, I: 167, 
declares that this view has ‘‘some confirmation ’’ from other sources. Savage gives an account of 
him in a note to Winthrop, II: 3109. 


164 THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM. 


vantage of the political situation on both sides of the Atlantic, 
he determined that petitions should be presented to the General 
Courts of’ 


‘* Massachusetts and of Plimouth, and (if that succeeded not) then to the parliament 
of England, that the distinctions which were maintained here, both in civil and church 
estate, might be taken away, and that we might be wholly governed by the laws of 
England.” 

As a first step, Vassall had the case laid before the Plymouth 
Court, in October, 1645, and proposed, so Winslow records,” 

*‘to allow and maintaine full and free tollerance of religion to all men that would 
preserve the civill peace and submit unto government.” 

Nor did the proposition meet a wholly unfavorable hearing 
on the part of some of the Court; but Bradford refused to let the 
matter come to a vote and thus brought the petition to naught. 
The next step seems to have béen the preparation of a petition® 


“‘to the parliament, pretending that they being freeborn subjects of England, v -re 
denied the liberty of subjects, both in church and commonwealth, themselves and 
their children debarred from the seals of the covenant, except they would submit to 
such a way of entrance and church covenant, as their consciences could not admit, 
and take such a civil oath as would not stand with their oath of allegiance.” 


But Vassall was not working alone in the matter. His sym- 
pathizers in Massachusetts were numerous ; and now, at the Gen- 
eral Court held at Boston in May, 1646, some seven of them, Dr. 
Robert Child, Thomas Fowle, Samuel Maverick, Thomas Burton, 
John Smith, David Yale, and John Dand*—the first-named a 
reputed graduate of Padua, and all the others of sufficient stand- 
ing to be given the title of “ Mr.” by Winthrop,— presented a pe- 
tition® in which the statements of the proposed memorial to Par- 





1 Winthrop, II: 310. 

2 Our information is derived from a letter of Winslow to Winthrop preserved in Hutchinson, 
fTist. . . . Mass. Bay, WII (Collection): 153-155, under date of Nov. 24, 1645. The letter 
carefully omits the names of the petitioners. 

3 Winthrop, II: 319, 320. 

4 Brief biographical notes regarding most of the signers, by Savage, will be found in his 
second edition of Winthrop, II: 320, 321. 

5 The text of the petition may be found in Hutchinson, III (CodZectzonm) : 188-1906. Some of 
its more important passages are the following: ‘‘1. Whereas this place hath been planted by the 
incouragement, next under God, of letterts patent given and granted by his Majesty of England 
: we cannot, according to our judgments, discerne a setled forme of government accord- 
ing to the lawes of England, . . . 2. Whereas there are many thousands in t hese plantations, of 
the English nation, freeborne, quiett and peaceable men, righteous in their dealings, forward with 
hand, heart and purse, to advance the publick good . . . who are debarred from all civill im- 
ployments (without any just cause that we know) not being permitted to bear the least office 


GROUNDS OF DISSATISFACTION 165 


liament were amplified and strengthened, and formal notice was 
given that, unless the prayer was heard, recourse woe be had 
to Parliament. , 

It is impossible not to have a high degree of sympathy with 
these men in their complaint. The formidable barriers which 
stood in the way of church-membership have already been pointed 
out,’ and justifiable as they seemed from a Congregational stand- 
point. as to the proper composition of a church, they were a de- 
parture from the practice of all ecclesiastical bodies of import- 
ance then to be found in the Protestant world. The matter of 
the franchise was even more galling. Though the population 
of Massachusetts was probably over 15,000 at the time of the 
petition, up to 1643 only 1,708 persons had become citizens in the 
Colony, and of them a number had removed to Connecticut. If 
the ecclesiastical test was not applied in Plymouth, the case was 
even worse there; so difficult was it to obtain citizenship that 
out of some 3,000 inhabitants only about 230 had been enfran- 
chised by 1643.2. Not only were the majority of the male inhabit- 
ants thus shut out from any active share in the government, the 
ranks of the excluded contained many of wealth, character, and in- 
fluence in the community. But while it must be admitted that the 
complaints of the disfranchised had much justification, the time 


was no fit season for a change in the constitution. The leaders 


(though it cannot be denyed but some are well qualifyed) no not so much as to have any vote in 
choosing magistrates, captains or other civill and military officers; notwithstanding they have 
, paid all assessments, taxes, rates. . . . We therefore desire that civill liberty and free- 
dom be forthwith granted to all truely English, equall to the rest of their countrymen. 
3. Whereas their are diverse sober, righteous and godly men, eminent for knowledge and other 
gracious gifts of the holy spirit, no wayes scandalous in their lives and conversation, members of 
the church of Endland . . . not dissenting from the latest and best reformation of England, 
Scotland, &c. yet they and their posterity are deteined from the seales of the covenant of free 
grace, because, as it is supposed, they will not take these churches covenants, for which as yet they 
see no light inGods word . . . They are compelled, under a severe fine, every Lords day to ap- 
pear at the congregation, and notice is taken of such who stay not till baptism be administred to 
other mens children, though deneyed to their owne; . . . We therefore humbly intreat you 
to give liberty to members of the church of England, not scandalous in their lives and 
conversations . . . tobe taken into your congregation and to enjoy with you all those liberties 
and ordinances Christ hath purchased forthem . . . or otherwise to grant liberty to settle 
themselves here in a church way, according to the best reformations of England and Scotland, if 
not, we and they shall be necessitated to apply our humble desires to the honourable houses of 
parliament.”’ 
1 See ante, p. 106. 
2 These figures may be found in Palfrey, History of New England, I1: 5-8. 


166 THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


of New England felt that they were the champions of a religious 
cause not only in their own land but in England,—a cause, too, 
which was unpopular in the eyes of the majority of Parliament. 
They feared that their system was to be attacked by the English 
authorities in its political and ecclesiastical features; and they 
felt, therefore, that instead of effecting any changes, the result 
of which it was impossible to foresee, they must strengthen the 
foundations of existing institutions and prepare to meet opposi- 
tion. The petition was therefore laid over till the next session.’ 
But though the petition was not dealt with at this time, the 
movement which led to the petition, rather than the petition 
itself,? had determined the ministers and magistrates of the Col- 
ony to secure, if possible, a united ecclesiastical constitution. 
Congregationalism had passed the experimental stage. It was 
no longer the polity of small and isolated congregations, like 
those of Amsterdam or Scrooby. It was now substantially the 
established church of New England, and as such was united by 
common interests, and bound together by the necessarily con- 
servative attitude toward other polities which such a position im- 
plied. As yet this essential unity had had no expression. Its 
features had been delineated in many works of recognized value, 
but they had found no authoritative statement. There was no 
standard by which the relations of one church to another could 
be determined ; none which decided whether a certain course of 
action was Congregational or not. Whether the creation of such 
a standard was strictly in accordance with the original principles 
of Congregationalism may be questioned; but there caa be no 
doubt that it was a logical and necessary step in development 
if Congregationalism was to be enforced by the civil government 
as an exclusive polity. The difference between English and 
American Congregationalism is chiefly due to this unlikeness of re- 





1 Winthrop, IT: 321. 

2 Whether the order for a Synod followed the presentation of the petition is doubtful —the 
Court began May 6, 1646, and lasted ‘‘near three weeks” (i. e., till about the 25th). The order 
for the Synod is entered in the Colony Records (I1:154), under date of May 1s. It was the 
subject also of considerable discussion before its passage. But Winthrop (II: 321), declares that 
the petition was presented, ‘‘ the court being then near at an end.”’ 


THE COURT CALLS A SYNOD 167 


lationship to the state and to other ecclesiastical bodies. English 
Independency has always occupied a more or less conscious po- 
sition of protest against the established Episcopacy. It has never 
had state support. It has therefore always had a certain radical 
and innovating character, and the necessity of fixing its own 
standards has never been sharply impressed upon it; rather its 
whole course has been one of protest against standards erected 
and imposed by authority. But New England Congregationalism, 
in becoming a dominant church-system enjoying the support of 
the state, took of necessity a conservative position. Other bodies, 
including the Church of England itself, when they appeared on 
New England soil, were the innovators who were to show cause 
for their departure from the New England way. Such a position 
demands the establishment of standards and the recognition of 
certain uniform methods of procedure, that the established pol- 
ity may maintain its integrity.’ 

The natural and Congregational way to arrive at any such 
agreement in regard to the common polity of the churches was 
by means of a Synod, or, as modern Congregationalism would 
prefer to call it,a Council. But as the Congregationalism of the 
seventeenth century was largely imbued with the feeling that 
the officers of civil government were to be consulted in all affairs 
of moment concerning the churches, the motion toward this 
Synod took the form of an application by some of the ministers 
to the General Court of the Massachusetts Colony, at its May 
session in 1646, for the summons of such a meeting.’ The bill, 
which would appear to have been drawn up in form for enact- 
ment by the ministers who presented it, encountered the same di- 
versity of feeling which had been shown in the Hingham affair. 
The magistrates, in sympathy with the clerical applicants, pagsed 
the bill as presented ; but the deputies of the towns objected to 
the mandatory form of the enactment:* 


‘* First, because therein civil authority did require the churches to send their 
messengers to it, and divers among them [the deputies] were not satisfied of any 


1 See the suggestive remarks of Palfrey, Wzst. NV. Z., II : 179-183. 
2 Winthrop, IT: 323. 3 [b7d. 


168 THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


such power given by Christ to the civil magistrate over the churches in such cases ; 
secondly, whereas the main end of the synod was propounded to be, an agreement 
upon one uniform practice in all the churches, the same to be commended to the 
general court, etc., this seemed to give power either to the synod or the court to 
compel the churches to practise what should so be established.” 

The magistrates were ready in the main to defend the posi- 
tions to which the deputies objected. They declared the right of 
the magistrates to summon representatives from the churches 
when occasion demanded;* and though they were clear that 
the proposed Synod would have no power to command, but only 
to counsel, they were positive that the Court could enforce or 
reject the result, as it seemed to the mind of the Legislature to 
accord or not with the Word of God. Yet it was evident that 
something should be conceded to the deputies’ scruples, and it 
was therefore decided that, though the Court would waive none 
of the theoretic rights asserted by the magistrates, the call should 
take the form of invitation rather than command. Agreement 
being thus reached, both houses united in a request for the de- 
sired Synod. 

The length of the document which embodies this call might 
well seem to make its omission here desirable, was it not for 
the light which it sheds on the matters which the General Court 
supposed would form the topic of the Synod’s discussions. A 
careful reading will show that the Court intended a more direct 
treatment of the questions raised by Vassall, Child, and their as- 
sociates than the Synod actually gave; and it certainly shows 
that problems which have usually been associated with a later 
stage of New England history were uppermost in the minds of 
those who issued the call. 

‘* Rostomeyeres 3°? m, 1646.” 
The right forme of church gov'mnt & discipline being agreed® pt of y® king- 


dome of Christ upon earth, therefore y® establishing & settleing thereof by y* ioynt 
& publike agreem* & consent of churches, & by y® sanction of civill authority, must 





1 The reason given is that God has laid on,the civil rulers the duty of maintaining the purity 
of the churches, both in doctrine and discipline. /é7d. 

2 The call is recorded in the Journal of the upper house, Records . . . Mass. Bay, 
II : 154-156, and of the lower, /ézd., III: 70-73. There are a few minor verbal differences, which 
will be noted only when they affect the sense. The text here given is that of the upper house. 

3 Deputies’ Record, a good Pte. 


TEXTeer THE CALL 169 


needs greatly conduce to y® hono" & glory of o* Lord Jesus Christ, & to y® settleing & 
safety of church and comon wealth, where such a duty is diligently’ attended & 
p’formed; & in asmuch as times of publike peace, w°* by y® m'cy of God are 
vouchsafed to these plantations, but how long y® same may continue wee do not 
know, are much more comodious for y® effecting of such a worke then those trouble- 
some times of warr & publike disturbances thereby, as y® example of o° deare native 
country doth witnes at this day, where by reason of y® publike comotions & troubles 
in y® state of? reformation of religion, & y® establishing of y® same is greatly retarded, 
& at y® best cannot be p’fected w"out much difficulty & danger, & whereas divers of 
o* Christian country men & freinds in England, both of y® ministry & oth’s, con- 
sidering y® state of things in this country in regard of o° peace & otherwise, have sun- 
dry times, out of their broth'ly faithfulnes, & love, & care of our weldoing, earnestly by 
lett"® from thence solicited, & called upon us yt wee would not neglect y*® oportunity 
w°" God hath put in our hands for ye effecting of so glorious & good a worke as is 
mentioned, whose advertisem'* are not to be passed over without due regard had 
thereunto, & consid'ing w'*all yt, through want of y® thing here spoken of, some 
differences of opinion & practice of one church fro™ anoth™ do already appeare 
amongst us, & oth's (if not timely p’vented) are like speedily to ensue, & this not 
onely in lesser things, but even in pointes of no small consequence & very materiall, 
to instance in no more but onely those about baptisme, & y® p’sons to be received 
thereto, in w** one pticular y® app’hensions of many p’sons in y® country are knowne 
not a little to differ; for whereas in most churches the minist'® do baptize? onely 
such children whose nearest parents, one or both of them, are setled memb', in full 
comunion w' one or other of these churches, there be some who do baptize y® chil- 
dren if y® grandfather or grandmother be such members, though the imediate parents 
be not,* & oth'® though for avoyding of offence of neighbo" churches, they do not as 
' yet actually so practice, yet they do much incline thereto, as thinking more liberty 
and latitude in this point ought to be yeilded then hath hitherto bene done,’ & 
many p’sons liveing in y® country who have bene members of y® congregations in 
England, but are not found fit to be received at y® Lords table here, there be not- 
w*standing considerable p’sons in these churches who do thinke that y® children of 
these also, upon some conditions & tearmes, may & ought to be baptized likewise ; 
on the oth" side there be some amongst us who do thinke that whatever be y® state 
of y® parents, baptisme ought not to be dispensed to any infants whatsoever,® w“ va- 
rious app’hensions being seconded wt* practices according thereto, as in part they 
already are, & are like to be more, must needs, if not timely remedied beget such 
differences as wilbe displeasing to the Lord, offensive to others, & dangerous to 
our selues, therefore’ for the further healing & preventing of the further groth of the 
said differences, and upon other groundes, and for other ends aforementioned. ; 





1 Jéid., dewly. WLOtd.. “2: 3 /bézd., omits baptize. 

4 Cotton had declared this to be the view held by him and the Boston church, in a letter 
written to the Dorchester church as early as Dec. 16, 1634. See Increase Mather, /7rst Principles 
af New England, Concerning The Subject of Baptisme, etc., Cambridge, 1675, p.2; Hooker 
took the opposite view. Survey, Pt. 3, pp. 9-27. 

5 As early as 1645, Richard Mather had advocated what was substantially the half-way-cov- 
enant position. First Principles, etc., p. 11. 

8 Instances of Baptist believers, at Salem and elsewhere in Massachusetts colony, previous to 
1646, will be found in G. E. Ellis, Purztan Age . . . in Mass., pp. 379-386. It is possible that 
some inkling of the views of Henry Dunster, which were to compel him to resign the presidency of 
Harvard College in 1654, had already got abroad. 

7 In the Deputies’ Record this clause beginning therefore opens the next paragraph. 


12 


170 THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


Althrough this Courte make no question of their lawfull power by the word of 
God to assemble the churches, or their messeng"’, upon occasion of counsell, or any 
thing w*t may concerne the practise of the churches, yet because all members of the 
churches (though godly & faithfull) are not yet clearely satisfied in this point, it is 
therefore thought expedient, for the p’sent occasion, not to make use of that power, 
but rather to exprese’ o" desire that the churches will answere the desire of this 
p’sent Generall Co'te, that there be a publike assembly of the elders & other messen- 
gers of the severall churches within this iurisdiction, who may come together & 
meete at Cambridge upon the first day of September now next ensuing, there to 
discusse, dispute, & cleare up, by the word of God, such questions of church gov- 
ernm' & discipline in y® things aforementioned, or any oth", as they shall thinke 
needfull & meete, & to continue so doing till they, or y® maior part of them, shall 
have agreed & consented upon one forme of gov'ment & discipline, for the maine 
& substantiall pts thereof, as that w*) they iudge agreeable to the Holy Scriptures, 
which worke, if it be found greater then can well be dispatched at one meeting, or 
session of y® said assembly, they may then, as occasion & neede shall require, make 
two sessions or more, for y® finishing of y® same; & what they shall agree upon they 
shall exhibite y* same in writing to y° Govern", or Deputy Gov'n", for y® time being, 
who shall p’sent y® same to y® Gentall Courte then next ensuing, to y® end that the 
same being found agreeable to y® word of God, it may receive from y® said Gentall 
Co'te such app’bation as is meete, that y® Lord being thus acknowledged by church 
& state to be o' Iudge, o' Lawgiver, & ot King, he may be graciously pleased still 
to save us, as hith"to hee hath done, & glory may still dwell in of land, truth & peace 
may abide still in these churches & plantations, & o* posterity may not so easily 
decline fro™ y® good way, when they shall receive y® same thus publikely & sol- 
emnly comended to them, but may rath™ ad to such beginings of reformation & 
purity as wee in o' times have endeavted after, & so y® churches in Newe England 
may be Jehovahs, & hee may be to us a God from gentation to generation. 

And as for y® cost & charges of y® said Assembly, its thought meete, iust, & 
equall that those churches who shall thinke meete to send their eld"s & messeng’s shall 
take such care as that, dureing their attendance at y® said Assembly, they may be p’vided 
for, as is meete, & what strangers or oth" shall, for their owne edification, be p’sent 
at the said Assembly, they to p’vide for themselues & bear their owne charge. And,’ 
forasmuch as ye plantations win y® iurisdictions of Plimoth, Conectecott, & Newe 
Haven are combined & united w these plantations wtin y® Massachusets, in y® 
same civill combination & confederacy,—?® 

It is therefore hereby ordered & agreed, that y® churches wt*in y® said iurisdic- 
tions shalbe requested to send their elders & messeng"® to y® Assembly aforemen- 
tioned, for w* end y® Secretary for y® time being shall send a sufficient number of 
coppies of this p’sent* declaration unto y® eld's of ye churches w'*in ye iurisdictions 
aforementioned, or unto y® governer or govern’, comission" or comission’, for y® 
said confederate iurisdictions respectively, that so those churches, haveing timely no- 
tice thereof, may y® bett" p’vide to send their eld" & messengers to y® Assembly, 
who, being so sent, shall be received as pts & members? thereof, & shall have like 





1 Deputies’ Record reads, rather hereby declare it to be ye desire of this psent Gennerall 
Courte, yt there bea publicke assembly. 

2 In the Deputies’ Record this sentence begins the next paragraph. 

3 Reference is here made to the union effected between the four colonies in 1643. 

4 Deputies’ Record, psent order or declarcon, 5 Tbid., pte memb's, 


REGEPTIONSEY THE CHURCHES EAI 


libtty & pow" of disputing & voting therein, as shall y*® messeng™® & eld'® of y® 
churches w'*in y® jurisdiction of y® Massachusets.” 

It is evident that the Court intended that the Synod should 
pass upon the questions regarding baptism and church-member- 
ship which were already agitating the community, and which ap- 
peared in the petition of Dr. Child and his associates. 

The summer between the adjournment of the Court and the 
time set for the meeting of the Synod was spent largely in discus- 
sion, in which that petition and its supporters came in for a full 
share of condemnation from the upholders of existing institutions. ' 
But it is plain that the frequent sermons to which Massachusetts 
congregations listened that summer did not wholly remove the ob- 
jections entertained by many as to the propriety of a Synod, and 
especially of a Synod called by the General Court, in spirit if not 
in letter. When the appointed first of September arrived, how- 
ever, all the Massachusetts churches had sent their representa- 
tives, “except Boston, Salem, Hingham, Concord.’’? The absence 
of the latter was accidental, for Concord had not been able to find 
any brother fit to send and its pastor was hindered. Hingham, in 
view of recent events, would hardly have been likely to respond to 
an invitation of the General Court, even if the Presbyterian sym- 
pathies of its minister had been less pronounced. But with Boston 
and Salem the case was more serious. These churches, one the 
oldest and the other the largest in the Colony, took exception to 
the Synod *— 


“*1. Because by a grant in the Liberties the elders had liberty to assemble 
without the compliance of civil authority, 2. It was reported, that this motion came 
originally from some of the elders, and not from the court, 3. In the order was ex- 
pressed, that what the major part of the assembly should agree upon should be pre- 
sented to the court, that they might give such allowance to it as should be meet, hence 
was inferred that this synod was appointed by the elders, to the intent to make eccle- 
siastical laws to bind the churches, and to have the sanction of the civil authority put 
upon them.” 





1A defence of the petitioners was published at London in 1647 by J. Child, brother of the 
petitioner, under the title of New-Englands Jonas cast up at London, or a Relation of the Pro- 
ceedings of the Court at Boston in N. E. etc., in which much complaint is made of pulpit attacks 
upon the petitioners. The work has been several times reprinted, 2 Col7. Mass. Hist. Soc., 1V: 
107-120; Force, Tracts, Washington, 1836-46, IV ; and with prefatory matter by W. T. R. Marvin, 
Boston, 1869. 

2 Winthrop, II: 320. 3 Jota. 


172 ‘THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


These views, Winthrop tells us, were chiefly advanced by those 
“who came lately from England, where such a vast liberty was 
allowed, and sought for by all that went under the name of Inde- 
pendents.”’ Their advocates were able to quote in their behalf 
not only such stout defenders of English Congregationalism as 
Goodwin, Nye, and Burroughes, but a positive order enjoining 
“that all men should enjoy their liberty of conscience,” issued by 
the Commissioners for Plantations, a board recently established 
by Parliament,’ to the English settlers in the West Indies and Ber- 
muda,—an order which the Commissioners had sent to Massachu- 
setts in the softened form of advice. ‘This party of opposition to 
the Synod embraced some thirty or forty of the Boston church. 

Here, then, was material for a serious division, the more so 
that some of the points raised were of a nature exceedingly diff- 
cult to answer. The first objection, for instance, was based on the 
provision of the Body of Liberties of 1641, that?— 


‘“ The Elders of the Churches have free libertie to meete monthly, Quarterly, or 
otherwise, in convenient numbers and places, for conferences, and consultations about 
Christian and Church questions and occasions.” 


But the majority of the church, of whom Winthrop was doubt- 
less the leader, had a ready reply to all the criticisms. That to 
the first demurrer is perhaps the most curious. They affirmed 
that the permission to ministers to meet upon their own motion,* 


‘“was granted only for a help in case of extremity, if, in time to come, the civil au- 
thority should either grow opposite to the churches, or neglect the care of them, and 
not with any intent to practise the same, while the civil authority were nursing fathers 
to the churches.” 


It was further urged, as an answer to the second objection, that it 


was really no concern of the churches ° 


1 Jézd. 

2 The Commissioners for Plantations were a board of six lords and twelve commoners, created 
by Parliament Nov. 2, 1643; and designed to exercise whatever authority had been enjoyed by King 
Charles over these plantations. Among the commoners was Samuel Vassall, a brother of the New 
England agitator, William Vassall,—a fact which explains something of the confidence with which 
he and the petitioners proposed to appeal to Engl#sh authority, and the dread with which the min- 
isters and Court regarded his schemes. See Palfrey, I: 633, 634. 

3The Body of Liberties was a code of laws drawn up chiefly by Rev. Nathaniel Ward of 
Ipswich, and adopted by the General Court, for trial and approval by use, in December, 1641. The 
code may be found in 3 Coll, Mass. Hist. Soc., VIII: 191-237. See also Winthrop, II: 66; and 
Felt, Ecclesiastical History, 1: 439, 440. The law is section gs, clause 7. 

4 Winthrop, II: 330. 5 Tbid. 


RELUGTANCES@ ss THE BOSTON CHURCH 173 


**to inquire, what or who gave the court occasion to call the synod, . . . it was 
the churches’ duty to yield it to them [the Court]; for so far as it concerns their com- 
mand or request it is an ordinance of man, which we [the churches] are to submit 
unto for the Lord’s sake, without troubling ourselves with the occasion or success.” 
To the third point of criticism it was answered that the lan- 
guage of the Court did not forbid the Synod to submit their finding 
to the churches for approval before returning it to the Court, and 
did not imply that the Court intended to make it penally binding. 
But, spite of these reasonings, the objectors were not con- 
vinced; and after two Sabbaths spent in vain agitation, the pastor 
and teacher, Wilson and Cotton, “told the congregation, that they 
thought it their duty to go notwithstanding, not as sent by the 


9] 


church, but as specially called by the order of the court. Mean- 
while the Synod had met, and had sent an urgent appeal to the 
Boston church to choose delegates, since it was clear to the Synod 
that a refusal on the part of Boston and Salem would peril the 
whole enterpma.., On the reception of these letters’ the ‘ruling 
elders, Thomas Oliver and Thomas Leverett, hastily summoned 
such of the church as they could gather on Wednesday, September 
2; but “nothing could be done.”? On the following day, however, 
the regular Thursday lecture was given, and thither the greater 
part of the Synod repaired. It is probable that the Boston minis- 
ters felt that, under the circumstances, a stranger’s voice would be 
more persuasive, and Rev. John Norton of Ipswich, later to be 
teacher of the Boston church, was well fitted for the task. He? 


““took his text suitable to the occasion, viz., of Moses and Aaron meeting in the 
mount and kissing each other, where he laid down the nature and power of the synod, 
as only consultative, decisive, and declarative, not coactive, etc. He showed also the 
power of the civil magistrate in calling such assemblies, and the duty of the churches 
in yielding obedience to the same. He showed also the great offence and scandal 
which would be given in refusing, etc.” 

Norton’s sermon was not without considerable effect, and 
when the question was next brought up by the Boston church, on 
Sunday, September 6, the matter was finally put to vote by show 
of hands. The majority was clearly in favor of representation in 


the Synod; but the minority objected that the church had hitherto 


1 Jézd. 2 Jbid., 331. S07. 


174 THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


required a unanimous vote for important decisions. The force of 
the objection was felt; but the majority replied that the case was 
one demanding action, unanimous if possible, if not, the majority 
must act. At this stage of proceedings the spirit of well meant 
but impracticable compromise took hold of some of the brethren, 
and it was seriously proposed that, instead of sending delegates, 
the church should attend the Synod in a body. Happily good 
sense prevailed, and “in the end it was agreed by vote of the 
major part, that the elders and three of the brethren should be 
sent as messengers.”’ The absence of records and of a chronicler 
like Winthrop make it impossible to follow the course of the dis- 
cussion in the Salem church, but we may presume, since we hear 
nothing further regarding its opposition to the Synod, that argu- 
ments similar to those used at Boston overcame its reluctance. 
The Synod, therefore, was able to set about its work with the 
moral support of twenty-eight of the twenty-nine churches in the 
Massachusetts Colony (to which the two churches of New Hamp- 
shire should be added, that province being then under the protec- 
tion of Massachusetts); and the good-will, together with a few 
representatives, of the twenty-two churches of Plymouth, Con- 
necticut, and New Haven.’ 

Though ready for deliberation at last, a variety of causes pre- 
vented the doing of much of importance at this session of the 
Synod. The disputes at Boston had taken a number of days, the 


season was late,* and “few of the elders of other colonies [than 





1 Jbid., 332. 

2 Under no claim of infallibility the following list of churches in the four confederate colonies 
is subjoined—the dates are those of organization. Massachusetts, Salem, 1629, Boston, 1630, 
Watertown, 1630, Roxbury, 1632, Lynn, 1632, Charlestown, 1632, Ipswich, 1634, Newbury, 1635, 
Hingham, 1635, Weymouth, 1635, Cambridge, 1636, Concord, 1636, Dorchester, 1636, Springfield, 
1637, Salisbury, 1638, Dedham, 1638, Quincy, 1639, Rowley, 1639, Sudbury, 1640, Edgartown, 1641? 
Woburn, 1642, Gloucester, 1642, Hull, 1644, Wenham, 1644, Haverhill, 1645, Andover, 1645, Read- 
ing, 1645, Topsfield, 1645, Manchester, 1645. (ew Hampshire, Hampton, 1638, Dover, 1638, 
Exeter, 1638, was dead.) Plymouth, Plymouth, 1602? Duxbury, 1632, Marshfield, 1632, Scituate 
[London, 1616], 1634 (removed to Barnstable 1639), Taunton, 1637, Sandwich, 1638, Yarmouth, 1639, - 
Scituate, (new), 1639, South Scituate, 1642, Rehoboth, 1644, Eastham, 1646. Connecticut, Windsor, 
1630, Hartford, 1633, Wethersfield, 1636[41]? Saybrook, 1639[46]? Fairfield, 1639[50]? Stratford, 
1640? South Hampton, L. I. (under Conn. jurisdiction), 1640? Mew Haven, New Haven, 1639, 
Milford, 1639, Stamford, 1641? Guilford, 1643, Branford, 1644 (from South Hampton, L. I.). The 
question mark indicates doubt as to date of organization. See Dexter, Cong. as seen, p. 412; and 
Cong. Quarterly, IV: 269, 270 (July, 1862); Clark, W7zst. Sketch of the Cong. Chs. in Mass., Bos- 
ton, 1858; Punchard, “7st. of Congregationalism, IV, passim. 

3 It should be remembered that we have to do with old style dates—the day of meeting, 
therefore, corresponded with the modern Sept. 11. 


THE FIRST SESSION, 1646 175 


9] 


Massachusetts] were present. Yet substantial progress was 
made. A committee prepared and presented a paper of some 
length on the much debated problems regarding the power of the 
civil magistrate to interfere in matters of religion, the nature and 
powers of a Synod, and the right of the magistrates to call such 
assemblies.” The opinion expressed on the first and third points 
was: strongly affirmative, while a Synod was declared to be, as 
Norton pictured it to the Boston church, an advisory rather than 
a judicial body. But the Synod treated the report with great cau- 
tion, it “being distinctly read in the Assembly, it was agreed thus 
farre onely, That they should be commended unto more serious 
consideration against the next Meeting.” ® 

A yet more important matter was the appointment by the 
Synod of Rev. Messrs. John Cotton of Boston, Richard Mather of 
Dorchester, and Ralph Partridge of Duxbury in Plymouth Colony, 
each to prepare a “model of church government” for submission 
to the assembly at its next session.* And so, having sat “but 
about fourteen days,”’® the Synod adjourned to the eighth of June, 
1647. 

On October 7th, following the close of the Synod, the General 
Court met once more. To its thinking the outlook was serious 
enough. Samuel Gorton, who had successively turmoiled Massa- 
chusetts, Plymouth, and Rhode Island, and had received severe 
treatment in all, had gone to England with two followers, Greene 
and Holden, in 1644, and laid complaint against Massachusetts 


before the Commissioners for Plantations. Holden had returned, 





1 Winthrop, II: 332. 

2 Some extracts from this Report will be given at the close of this introduction. It cannot be 
too frequently pointed out that by a ‘‘Synod” the New England fathers meant what is now known 
as a council. 

3 Report — Result of a Synod at Cambridge in N. E. Anno 1646, p.1. Hubbard, Gen, 
FTist., 536, 537; and Mather, who follows him, Maguadia, ed. 1853-5, II: 210, quote a single passage 
from this report and imply that the Synod endorsed it. Such was not the case, save as represented 
above. The statement that it was ‘‘accompanied with a discourse of Mr. Tho. Allen, wherein this 
doctrine was further explained,”’ is also erroneous. Allen wrote a simple preface to this tract and 
two others which he bound with it. On the joint title-page Allen attributed its authorship to John 
Cotton, but a careful reading of the preface fails to give certainty to this conjecture. 

4 Magnalta, ed. 1853-5, I]: 211. Mather is doubtless correct in this statement. His grand- 
fathers were two of the three designated, and the draft by Ralph Partridge still exists in the 
manuscript collections of the American Antiquarian Society at Worcester, 

5 Winthrop, II: 332. 


176 THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


arriving at Boston in September, 1646, armed with orders from the 
Commissioners directing that free passage should be granted to 
the three complainants through Massachusetts to Narragansett 
Bay, and not obscurely intimating that an answer to the charges 
was expected from the Massachusetts government.” The situa- 
tion was most embarrassing. To refuse to honor the orders of 
the Commissioners would mean a breach with the home govern- 
ment, but to admit their authority would be practically to abandon 
the local autonomy of the colonial government. It was clear, too, 
that Dr. Child and his fellow petitioners were alive to the fact 
that their prayer was to meet no favoring response in Massa- 
chusetts, and were about to carry out their threat and take the 
case before the Commissioners. If the authority of that board 
was admitted by the colonial government in one matter, what was 
to prevent the imposition by the Commissioners of all the changes 
desired by Vassall or Child? On Holden’s coming the magistrates 
in Boston had consulted the ministers who happened to be in the 
town for the Thursday lecture, and they had decided, on the whole, 
to allow Holden free passage, without raising the question of the 
validity of his documents.* But it was impossible to temporize 
much longer. The court, therefore, at its October meeting took 
prompt steps. A committee of four was appointed to’ 


‘*examine all the answ'* yt are brought into this Co'te to y® petition of Docto™ Child 
& M' Fowle, etc, & out of all to draw up such an answ’ thereto as they thinke most 
meete, & p’sent y® same to this Co'te, & furth" to treate wt Mt Winslow,® & to agree 
w‘ him as an agent for us, to answer to what shalbe obiected against us in England.” 
Pending the labors of this committee the Court adjourned till 
November 4, following. 

On its reassembling the Court adopted a most remarkable 
document, doubtless the work of the committee as authors or re- 


visers. Ina “ Declaration,” ° intended evidently for effect in Eng- 


1 To follow the story of these men, Antinomians whom the age hardly knew how to deal with, 
is aside from our purpose. Among many sources of information I may cite Winthrop, fasszm ; 


Hutchinson, H7st. . . . Mass. Bay, 1: 117-124; Allen, Biographical Dict., Boston, 1857, pp. 
390, 391; Palfrey, Hzst. N. #., I1: 116-140, 205-220. 

2 Winthrop, II: 333, 342-344. SE OId. 334. 

A’ Records a. %. 2) Massa Bayaieinoe: 5 Edward Winslow, the Plymouth pilgrim, 


6 The text may be found in Hutchinson, Codlectzon: 196-218. 


CONTINUED OPPOSITION IN THE COLONY Li, 


land, they opposed the petition of Child and his associates, and 
justified the form and methods of the Massachusetts government. 
In parallel columns they placed the main provisions of the magna 
charta and English common law and the answering enactments of 
the charter, liberties and laws of Massachusetts. They denied that 
taxation had been unfair or burdensome, they claimed that the 
petitioners did not really represent the unenfranchised,’ that~ad- 
mission to the church and its ordinances was readily attained by 
all who were fit,? while the right of baptism of their children was 
at that moment under discussion by the Synod.’ 

Before their agent should go to England, however, it seemed to 
the Court that some understanding as to the extent of their claims 
to local autonomy should be reached ; and, therefore, “‘ such of the 
elders as could be had were sent for, to have their advice in the 


4 


matter.’ After much discussion it was the conclusion of both min- 


isters and magistrates that, though the Colony owed allegiance to 
the English authorities, its powers of self-government were so great 


that no appeals from its proceedings could be allowed.* These 


1‘** These remonstrants would be thought to be arepresentative part of all the non-free- 
men in the countrie; but when we have pulled off theire vizards, we find them no other but 
Robert Child, Thomas Fowle, &c. For first, although their petition was received with all gentle- 
nes, yet we heare of no other partners that have appeared in it, though it be four months since it 
was presented. . . . These [Z. e., the non-petitioning] non-freemen also are well satisfyed (as we 
conceive) and doe blesse God for the blessings and priviledges they doe enjoy under this government. 
They think it is well, that justice is equally administred to them with the freemen ; that they have 
equall share with them in all towne lotts, commons, &c., that they have like libertie of accesse to 


the church assemblies, and like place and respect there, according totheire qualities . . . asalso 
like freedome of trade and commerce.”’ /é7d., 210, 211. 

2 “ These remonstrants are now come to the church doore. . . . They tell us, ‘that divers 
sober, righteous, and godly men . . . are detained from the seales, because .°*. . they will 


not take these churches covenant.’ The petitioners are sure mistaken or misrepresent the matter; 
for the true reasons why many persons in the country are not admitted to the seales are these: 
First, many are fraudulous in theire conversation ; or 2dly, notoriously corrupt in their opinions ; or 
3dly, grossly ignorant in the principles of religion; or 4thly, if any have such knowledge and gifts, 
yet they doe not manifest the same by any publick profession before the church or before the 
elders, and so it is not knowne that they are thus qualified. . . . The truth is, we account all 
our countrymen brethren by nation, and such as in charity we may judge to be beleevers are ac- 
counted also brethren in Christ. If they [the petitioners] be not publickly so called (especially in 
the church assemblies) it is not for want of due respect or good will towards them, but only for dis- 
tinction sake, to putt a difference betweene those that doe communicate together at the Lords table, 
and those who doe not.’’ /é7d., 213, 214, 217. 

3 “ Concerning the baptisme of the children of such as are not members of our churches, there 
is an assembly of the elders now in being, and: therefore we think fitt to deferr any resolution about 
that and some other pointes concerning the church discipline, untill we shall understand theire con- 
clusion therein, for further light in these things.” /ézd., 217. 

4 Winthrop, II: 340. 

5 Tbrd., 341, 345. John Allin, of Dedham, was the spokesman of the ministers. 


178 THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


points being settled, and the ministers’ views regarding the petition 
of Child and his associates having been heard, the Court now pro- 
ceeded to deal with the petitioners without ministerial advice.’ —Two 
of their number, Fowle and Smith, were arrested, the former as he 
was about to set sail for England, and informed that the Court held 
them to account for the allegations of the petition.” This brought 
all the petitioners except Maverick into ‘Court, and a scene fol- 
lowed in which much heated speech was indulged on both sides ; 
and ending in an announcement by Child of appeal to the Commis- 
sioners, and a declaration by Winthrop that no appeal would be 
admitted.* A committee of the Court then drew up a list of some 
twelve particulars in which they declared the statements of the 
petition false and scandalous ;* to which the petitioners replied 
sertatim, and the Court rejoined “extempore.”’°® But through all 
this cloud of charge and countercharge it is easy to see that the 
real question in the minds of the Court was that which Massachu- 
setts was to champion for all America a century and a quarter later, 
whether New England affairs were to be controlled by New Eng- 
land men, or by the will of Parliament. ‘This local independence 
Child denied. The Court as stoutly affirmed it.° And in this reso- 
lution of the Court lay the future not only of the New England 
churches, but of New England liberty. Yet while we cannot but 
rejoice that the Court took this attitude, its own course of action 
was arbitrary enough; and it is with a feeling of regret that we 
learn that it proceeded to fine Child fifty pounds, Smith forty, 
Maverick ten, and the rest thirty each ;”’ and that when, about a 
week later, Child attempted to go to England to prosecute his 
appeal, he was arrested, and Dand’s study forcibly entered and 
searched. Here papers were found, designed for presentation to 


the Commissioners, setting forth the character and conduct of the 





1 Jé7d., 346, 347. 

2 Tb¢d. See also Records, 111: 88,89. The petitioners were all summoned by the Court. 

3 7é¢d. The petitioners were informed that they were arraigned not for petitioning but for the 
false statements of the petition. 

4 [bid., 348-350. Records . . . Mass. Bay, III: go, or. 5 Winthrop, II: 350-354. 

8 Té¢d., 354-355. ‘* His [Child’s] argument was this, every corporation of England is subject 
to the laws of England ; but this was a corporation of England, ergo, etc.”’ 

7 Ibid., 355; Records, 111: 94. Fowle was “ then at sea.”’ 


WINSLOW'S MISSION TO ENGLAND 179 


Massachusetts government in no favorable light, questioning 
whether the talk of the ministers and magistrates in the Colony did 
not amount to high treason,and whether the patent might not be 
forfeited ; and also praying that a governor or commissioner should 
be appointed to rule the Colony, and that Presbyterian churches be 
established.’ For this presentation and request, which struck at 
the foundations of church and state in the Colony, three of the 
petitioners were committed. But though the Court might imprison, 
the case was sure of a hearing in England for, before the close of 
1646, Fowle and Vassall set sail. Those petitioners who were still 
in the Massachusetts jurisdiction, Child, Smith, Burton, Dand, 
and Maverick, were all condemned by the Court in May, 1647, to 
fines of one and two hundred pounds each.” Dand made his sub- 
mission to the Court and was released without payment in May, 
1648.*° Maverick secured an abatement of one-half in 1650 when 
the matter had somewhat quieted,’ but Child was in England by 
October, 1647, still a considerable debtor to the Colony.’ 

In the meanwhile Gov. Edward Winslow, of Plymouth, had 
sailed for England in December, 1646,° as the duly accredited 
agent of the Colony,’ provided with a formal answer to the charges 
of Gorton for presentation to the Commissioners,* and a variety 
of secret instructions as to how to meet the questions raised by 
Child and his friends.® His position was at first anything but 
easy. The brother of Vassall, the New England malcontent, was 
one of the Commissioners; the brother of Child was an active 
and able opponent of the Massachusetts government, and some of 
the petitioners had come over to push their own cause. But Wins- 
low went to work with vigor; in a few weeks after his landing, 
and pending the decision of the Commissioners, he published a 
sharp attack upon Gorton and his followers,” and not without 





1 Winthrop, II: 356-358; Hutchinson, Wzst. . . . Mass. Bay, ed. London, 1765, 1: 146-149. 

2 Records, III1: 113. Maverick was fined 450 in addition, since he was a freeman, making a 
total for him of £150. 

eped ell +247. 4 Tétd., III: 200. 5 Jéz7d., IL: 199. 6 Winthrop, II: 387. 

7 Tbtd., 364, 365; Records, I11: 93, 94. The Court considered Winslow’s mission of such 
general interest that letters were sent to Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven asking them to 
share in the expense. Records, Il: 165. 

8 Winthrop, II: 360-364; Records, III : 95-08. 9 Winthrop, II : 365-367. 

10 Hypocriste Vamasked: by A True Relation of the Proceedings of the Governour and 
Company of the Massachusets against Samvel Gorton, etc., London, 1646 [in new style, 1647]. 


180 THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


decided effect. In a similar way he replied, during the course 
of 1647, to the defence of the petitioners published by Child’s 
brother in that year.’ Yet it may well be questioned whether 
these efforts would have availed to save the Massachusetts gov- 
ernment from serious defeat and the churches from dreaded in- 
terference had not an entire change come over the political sit- 
uation in England. In 1645 and 1646, when Vassall and Child 
began their agitation, the Presbyterians were in the ascendant. 
But the influence of the army was constantly growing — an army 
which was predominantly Independent ; and with the Independ- 
ents the New Englanders were held in high esteem. Just before 
Winslow reached England the king had been surrendered to Par- 
liament by the Scotch. It was a great Presbyterian triumph ; 
that party seemingly secure in control of Parliament, appeared 
free to carry out whatever policy it wished. But the Presbyteri- 
ans had scarcely begun to enjoy their apparent supremacy, when 
the scale turned against them. In March, 1647, just as Winslow’s 
first pamphlet was appearing, Parliament tried to disband the 
army. ‘The army refused to obey, and demanded arrears of pay. 
And, in June, 1647, it obtained possession of the person of the 
king by force. The same month the army compelled eleven prom- 
inent Presbyterians to leave Parliament, and the Independents 
came into power. Presbyterian London asserted itself in July, 
but was soon overawed. Presbyterianism as a political force had 
lost the day ; by the dawn of 1648 its great defenders, the Scotch, 
were openly on the side of the king. Their defeat by Cromwell 
at Preston, August 17, 1648, put an end to any hope of their 
return to power till after Cromwell’s death. The effect on the 
New England cause of these sudden overturnings was apparent 
at once. In May, 1647, the Commissioners saw their way clear 
to inform the Massachusetts authorities that they had neither in- 
tended to encourage appeals from colonial justice, nor limit colo- 
nial jurisdiction by anything that had been done in the Gorton 
case.” By July the Commission was satisfied to leave the ques- 


1 Child’s book was, New-Englands Jonas cast up at London, London, 1647 (see ante, p. 171, 
mote 1); that by Winslow, Mew-Euglands Salamander, etc., London, 1647. (Reprinted in 3 
Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., 11: 110-145). 

2 Winthrop, IT: 389, 390. 


EFFECT OF ITS SUCCESS ON THE SYNOD ISI 


tion of -jurisdiction over the lands of the Gortonites to the New 
England colonial governments." Nor was Winslow less success- 
ful against Child and his associates. The ships which arrived at 
Boston in May, 1648, informed the magistrates “how the hopes 
and endeavors of Dr. Child and other the petitioners, etc., had 
been blasted by the special providence of the Lord, who still 
wrought for us.’’? 

This long negotiation formed the political background of the 
Cambridge Synod. Its perilous course was watched with anxiety, 
and when it was clear, by the autumn of 1647, that the existing 
institutions of New England were not to be disturbed, the relief 
was proportionately great. It produced one change of import- 
ance, however, in the work of the Synod. The prime questions 
propounded by the General Court had been’ those of baptism and 
church membership. These problems had been forced to the 
fore-front by the movement which had given rise to the petition. 
But they were questions regarding which there was much divers- 
ity of view, and therefore the Synod chose to pass them by, when 
they ceased to be pressing by reason of the defeat of the peti- 
tioners; and gave instead a merely subsidiary and somewhat am- 
biguous treatment to the topics which the Court had made chief.’ 
No doubt most men in New England were glad to have it so at 
the time, yet the questions were such as could not be ignored, 
and half a generation later they demanded and obtained a solu- 
tion. But it was fortunate indeed that thé discomfort of their 
enemies gave the representatives of the New England churches 
Opportunity to work out the declaration of their polity in peace. 


1 Jbzd., 387, 388. 2 Jbid., 391, 392. 

3 The Preface to the Result of the Synod of 1662, Propositions Concerning the Subject 
of Baptism, etc., Cambridge, 1662, p. xii, says: ‘‘ And in the Synod held at Cambridge zx the 
year 1048, that particular point of Baptizing the children of such as were admitted members 
tn minority, but not yet in full communion, was inserted tn some of the draughts that were 
prepared for that Assembly, and was then debated and confirmed by the like Arguments as 
we now use,and was generally consented to; though because some few dissented, and there 
was not the like urgency of occasion for present practise, tt was not then put into the Plat- 
form that was after Printed.” (See later page of this work.) 

Allin, in his A xzmadversions upon the Antisynodalia Americana, Cambridge, 1664, p. 5, 
is more definite. He uses language which implies that Charles Chauncy of Scituate, later presi- 
dent of Harvard, was the opponent: ‘‘ When this matter was under Consideration in the Synod, 
1648, the Author of this Preface [Chauncy] knoweth well who it was that professed, He would of- 
pose tt with all his might: by reason whereof, and the dissent of some few more, it was laid 
aside at that time.’’ For the statement in the draft submitted by Mather to the Synod, see 


post, Pp. 224. 


182 THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM. 


The Synod which had adjourned in mid-September, 1646, 
re-assembled at Cambridge, on June 8,1647. The attendance em- 
braced men as far removed in residence from the place of meet- 
ing as Gov. Bradford of Plymouth, and Rev. Messrs. Stone of 
Hartford, and Warham of Windsor. On June g, the Synod listened 
in the morning to a denunciatory sermon from Rev. Ezekiel Rogers 
of Rowley, in which the preacher inveighed against the late pe- 
titioners, and attacked the growing habit of the brethren in 
the churches “making speeches in the church assemblies,” and 
found fault with various customs, such as the wearing of long 
hair. ‘Divers were offended at his zeal in some of these pass- 


ages; and doubtless the pleasure of the Synod was greater, if 
their comprehension of the sermon was less, when “ Mr. [John] 
Eliot preached to the Indians in their own language before all 
the assembly,” in the afternoon.* But the session did not long 
continue. An epidemic, which cost Hartford Thomas Hooker, 
and Boston Gov. Winthrop’s wife, compelled it to break up be- 
fore it had accomplished much of moment.’ 

As the Synod went on the conception of its possible functions 
magnified. The original thought of the Court had been a settle- 
ment of church polity, with special attention to the disputed 
questions of baptism and church membership. Circumstances 
had made those questions less pressing, and had brought into 
greater prominence the broader function of the Synod, that of 
giving a constitution to the churches. But it might do even 
more. The Westminster Assembly had prepared a Confession 
of Faith in regard to which much secrecy was still observed.’ It 
had not yet been adopted by Parliament, though approved Au- 
gust 27, 1647, by the Scotch General Assembly. There was rea- 
son to fear that it might not be wholly satisfactory. And there- 
fore, at its session on October 27, 1647, the Massachusetts Gen- 

1 Our account of this session is in Winthrop, II: 376. 2 [bid., 378, 379. 

3 The Confession was finished Dec, 4, 1646, and presented to Parliament. That body at once 
ordered that ‘* 600 copies, and no more be printed,” and the printer was directed not to make any 
public. Matters then dragged on till April, 1647, when the Commons ordered proof texts furnished. 
This was done and the result printed under the same charge of secrecy. Discussion continued till 


the Confession, in slightly modified form, was adopted, June 20, 1648. See Schaff, Creeds, I: 757, 
758; Dexter, Cong. as seen, Bibliog., Nos. 1287, 1305. 


THE SECOND AND THIRD SESSIONS, 1647-8 183 


eral Court added to the duties of the Synod that of preparing a 
Confession of Faith, by the following order :’ 


‘‘ Whereas there is a synode in being, & it is y® purpose, beside y® clearing of 
some points in religion questioned,* to set forth a forme of church govern', accordé to 
y® ord’ of y® gospell, & to that end there are certeine members of y® synode that have in 
charge to prepare y® same against the synode; * but this Cote conceiving that it is as 
fully meete to set fourth a confession of y® faith we do p’fesse touching y® doctrinall 
pt of religion also, we do desire, therefore, these rev'end eld's following to take some 
paines each of them to p’pare a breife forme of this nature, & p’sent y® same to y°® 
next session of y® synode, that, agreeing to one, (out of them all,) it may be printed 
w'® the otht" Mr Norrice,> M* Cotton,® Mt Madder,? M' Rogers, of Ipswich,® M* 
Sheopard,® Mt Norton,!° & Mt Cobbet."! ; 


Doubtless the matter was taken into consideration; but before 
the Synod again met copies of the Westminster Confession had 
been received and the nature of that symbol had become fully 
known. The Court’s order regarding a Confession was obeyed, 
as will be seen, but in a somewhat different way from that which 
the Court suggested. 

The final session of the Synod opened at Cambridge on Au- 
gust 15, 1648; and, as at the previous meeting, the body began its 
work by listening to a sermon. This time the preacher was John 
Allin of Dedham,'and the theme an exposition of the teaching of 
the fifteenth chapter of Ac/s in regard to the nature and power of 
Synods, a treatment which led the divine to expose and rebuke a 
number of errors which had appeared affecting this subject during 
the late discussions throughout the’ Colony. The sermon was 
“very godly, learned, and particular’’;** yet it may be questioned 
whether it awakened as decided an interest in the congregation as 
did a snake that wriggled into the elder’s seat, behind the preacher, 
during its delivery. And when Rev. William Tompson of Braintree 
had effected the reptile’s death, the members of the Synod, like all 
their generation, eager to discover signs and divine interpositions 
in the occurrences of life, felt that’ ; 


“it is out of doubt, the Lord discovered somewhat of his mind in it. The serpent,” 
so they interpreted the imagined symbolism, ‘‘is the devil; the synod, the represent- 


iKecords,”’. . . Mass, Bay, 1: 200. 2 7, e., Baptism and church membership, 
3 7. e., Rev. Messrs. Cotton, Mather, and Partridge; see azte, p. 175. 

4 7. e., with the Platform of government. 5 Edward Norris, of Salem. 

6 John Cotton, of Boston. 7 Richard Mather, of Dorchester, 

8 Nathaniel Rogers. 9 Thomas Shepard, of Cambridge. 

10 John Norton, of Ipswich, later of Boston. 11 Thomas Cobbett, of Lynn. 


12 Winthrop, II: 402, 403. 13 Jb7d. 14 Jozd. 


184 THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


atives of the churches of Christ in New England. The devil had formerly and lately 
attempted their disturbance and dissolution ; but their faith in the seed of the woman 
overcame him and crushed his head.” 


The Synod went on harmoniously and rapidly with its work. 
The Platform of Church Discipline, drawn up by Richard Mather’ 
of Dorchester, with large use of previous writings of his own and 
of Cotton, was preferred as the basis of the Synod’s ecclesiastical 
constitution, and substantially adopted.* To it was prefixed a 
Preface by Rev. John Cotton of Boston,’ designed to explain some 


1 Magnadlia, ed. 1853-5, 1: 453. Richard Mather, the first of a distinguished New England 
family, was born at Lowton, Lancashire, in 1596. He studied at Oxford for a brief time, and then 
was asked to settle as minister of the Puritan congregation at Toxteth Park, near Liverpool, where 
he had already taught school. He was ordained by the bishop of Chester in 1620, but his Puritan- 
ism was so pronounced that he was silenced in 1633 and 1634, having never worn the surplice. 
Obliged thus to relinquish his ministry at Toxteth, he came to New England in 1635. He was. 
settled at Dorchester in 1636, and was from the first prominent in the affairs of the Colony. His 
answer to the XXXII Questions has already been noticed. He replied to the Presbyterian treatises: 
of Herle and Rutherford ; and, at a later period, took an active part in the half-way covenant con- 
troversy. He died at Dorchester, April 22, 1669. Of his sons, the youngest, Increase, was the: 
most famous, and Increase’s son, Cotton, kept the family name in prominence. 

Only a few of the biographical sources need be mentioned. Increase Mather, Life of 
Richard Mather (1670), in Coll. Dorchester Antiquarian Soc., Boston, 1850; Magnalia, 1: 443- 
458; Allen, Azz. Biog. Dict., ed. 1857, pp. 555, 556; Sprague, Anxals Am. Pulpit, 1: 75-79; Ap- 
pleton’s Cyclop. Am. Biog., 1V: 251; H. E. Mather, Lineage of Rev. Richard Mather, Hartford, 
1890, pp. 33-51 (with portrait). Mather’s works are enumerated by Sprague and H. E. Mather. 

2 Valuable extracts from Partridge’s draft, not adopted by the Synod, may be found in Dex- 
ter, Cong. as seen, pp. 444-447. He would not have given so much authority to the magistrates in 
matters of belief as the Synod did. Mather’s first draft, which like that of Partridge is in the 
possession of the Am. Antiquarian Soc, at Worcester, a little more than twice as long as the form 
finally adopted, and was not only abridged, but a good deal modified by the Synod. The final 
form, also at Worcester, is in Mather’s handwriting. 

3 See Increase Mather, Order of the Gospel, Professed and Practised by the Churches of 
Christ in New England, etc., Boston, 1700, p. 137. John Cotton, who might contest with Hooker 
the claim to rank as the ablest of the New England ministry, was born at Derby, Eng., Dec. 4, 1585. 
He was educated at Cambridge, entering Trinity College about 1598, and graduating A.M. in 1606. 
He became a fellow of Emmanual College, then the Puritan center, and later served as head lecturer, 
dean, and catechist. He became religiously awakened, and inclined toward Puritanism; and about 
1612 was made minister of the fine old church of St. Botolph, at Boston in Lincolnshire. Here he 
remained for twenty years, in spite of one suspension for Puritanism. His work was laborious, but 
eminently successful. Beside his regular Sunday sermons and his exposition of ‘*‘ the body of divin- 
ity in a catechetical way ’’ on Sunday afternoons, he preached four times in the week, and conducted 
a kind of theological seminary in hisown home. Attracting the attention of Laud, he escaped seri-. 
ous consequences by flight, and arrived at the New England Boston in September, 1633. Here he 
immediately became teacher of the Boston church. He was the ecclesiastical leader of the Massa- 
chusetts colony, a part of about all that was done in church or state till his death at Boston, Dec. 
23, 1652. His works were very numerous, and embrace doctrinal, devotional, ecclesiastical, and con- 
troversial treatises. His Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, London, 1644, has always been con- 
sidered one of the most authoritative expositions of Congregationalism. 

Cotton’s life has been frequently treated. The earliest sketch is that of Rev. Samuel Whit- 
ing of Lynn, Young, Chron. . . . Mass., 419-430; his successor, John Norton, published his 
life, Adel being Dead yet speaketh; or the Life & Deathof . . . Cotton, London, 1658, re- 
printed Boston, 1834. See also Mather, Wagnadia, ed. 1853-5, I: 252-286; A. W. M’Clure, Life of 
John Cotton, Boston, 1846 (1870); Allen, Dzct. Am. Biog., ed. 1857, 265-268; Sprague, Annals Am. 
Pulpit, 1: 25-30; J. S. Clark, in Cong. Quarterly, II]: 133-148 (April, 1861, with portrait); other 
references may be found in a note by Justin Winsor to Memorzal History of Boston, 1: 157, 158. 
A list of Cotton’s writings is given by Allen and Clark. 





CHARACTER OF THE PLATFORM Pets 5 


features of New England church: practices and to combat the 
charge frequently made by the Presbyterian party in England, as 
well as. by the Episcopalians, that the churches of New England * 
were of doubtful orthodoxy. And we may be sure that it was with 
especial pleasure, in view of the allegations of doctrinal unsound- 
ness brought against them by some of their English brethren, that 
the Synod proceeded to fulfill the spirit rather than the letter of 
the Court’s injunction in regard to a Confession of Faith by a 
hearty acceptance of the doctrinal part of the work of the West- 
minster Assembly (“for the substance therof’’) which had just 
received the approval of Parliament.’ These things were quickly 
done, and as the Synod united in a parting hymn,’ after a session 
of less than a fortnight,* it was doubtless with a feeling of satisfac- 
tion in their work. They had put the churches of New England, 
by formal declaration, where they had always been in fact, at one 
in doctrine with the Puritan party in England, whether Presbyte- 
rian or Independent. Their orthodoxy could not be impugned. 
They had formulated their polity in strict and logical order, and 
had given the churches a standard by which their practice might 
be regulated and innovation resisted. They had presented it, too, 
in a form not likely to arouse the jealousy of either faction in 
England or give excuse for Parliamentary interference. 

The Cambridge Platform is the most important monument of 
early New England Congregationalism, because it is the clearest 
reflection of the system as it lay in the minds of the first genera- 
tion on our soil after nearly twenty years of practical experience. 
The Platform is Barrowist. It does not recognize strongly the: 
democratic element in our polity, because Congregationalism at 
that day was Barrowist. It urges the right of the civil magistrate 
to interfere in matters of doctrine and practice, because Congre- 
gationalism then believed that such rights were his. It upholds 


Congregationalism as a polity of exclusive divine warrant, because 


1 See Preface to the Platform, p. 195 of this volume. 

2 Magnalia, ed. 1853-5, Il: 211. They sang ‘‘the song of Moses and the Lamb in the fif-. 
teenth chapter of thé Revelation — adding another sacred soxg from the nineteenth chapter of that. 
book ; which is to be found metrically paraphrased in the New-England psalm-book,”’ 

3 Winthrop, II: 403. 

13 


186 THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


Congregationalism in the seventeenth century so regarded itself. 
But it affirms the permanent principles of Congregationalism with 
equal clearness and insistence. The autonomy of the local church, 
the dependence of the churches upon one another for counsel, the 
representative character of the ministry, are all plainly taught and 
have given to the Platform a lasting value and influence. 

The Platform thus adopted was put forth in print by means 
of the rude press at Cambridge in 1649, and at the October session 
of the General Court of that year was duly presented to the Mas- 
sachusetts authorities. The Court proceeded with its usual caution 
and adopted the following vote *— 


‘“ Whereas a booke hath bene presented to this Court, intituled a Platforme of 
Church-Discipline out of the Word of God, etc., being the result of what the synod 
did in their assembling, 1647,” at Cambridge, for the * consideration & acceptance, 
the Court doth conceive it meet to be comended to the judicious & pious consideration 
of the seuerall churches w'*in this jurisdiction, desiring a returne from them at the next 
Genll Court how farr its suiteable to their judgmen* & approbations, before this 
Court proceed any furthe" therein.” 


But, thus urged, the churches were slow in their compliance ; 
and on June 19, 1650, the Court further voted that ‘— 


‘‘forasmuch as (it is sajd) that some of the churches were ignorant of the sajd order, 
& therefore little hath ben done in that pticular, this Courte . . . doe hereby 
order, that the sajd booke be duly considered off of all the sayd churches within this 
pattent, & that they, without fayle, will returne theire thoughts and judgments touch- 
inge the pticulars thereof to the next session of this Court . . . and further, it is 
hereby desired, y* euery church will, by the first oppertunity, take order for the 
p’cureinge of that booke, published by the synod at London, concerninge the doctrine 
of the gosple,® that the churches may consider of that booke, also, as soone as they can 
be gotten.” 


Thus admonished, the churches seem generally to have obeyed. 
If a judgment may be based on the instances in which records have 
come down to us, the books were read to the churches, and the 


opinion of the membership expressed by a vote.® Of course, as the 





1 Records . . . Mass. Bay, 11: 285; Il]: 177,178. The text is from the Magistrate’s 
Record, 

2 A mistake for 1648. 

3 Deputies’ Record reads more correctly ¢/ezr, i. e., the Court’s. 

4 Records, Ill: 204; IV: 22. 

5 J. e., the Westminster Confession. 

8 A few examples are given by Felt, Zcclestzast. Hist., 11: 18, 19, 29. Some of the communi- 
cations of the churches are in the MSS. Collections of the Am, Antiquarian Soc., Worcester, Mass, 
I have not seen them. 


— 


RECEPIAON EaaeOURT AND CHURCHES 187 


elders framed the proposition, their influence in the decision of 
each church would be great. When the Court came together once 
more, in May, 1651, it was moved to a vote, apparently on the 22d, 
expressing its thanks to the Synod now nearly three years ad- 
journed ; but declaring that *— 


**many of whom [the churches of Massachusetts] were pleased to p’sent to the last 
session of the last Court, by the deputyes of the seuerall. townes, seuerall objections 
against the sd confession of discipline, or seuerall ptyculers therein, wherevppon the 
Court judged it convenient & conduceinge to peace to forbeare to giue theire approba- 
tion therevnto vnles such objections as were p’sented were cleared & remoued ; for 
which purpose this Court doth order the secritary to draw vp y® Sd objections, or the 
princypall of them, & to deliuer the same to Reuerend M* Cotten within one moneth, to 
be comunicated to the elders of the seuerall churches, who are desired to meete & 
cleare the sd doubts, or any other that may be imparted to them by any other p’son 
concerninge the sd draught of discipline, & to returne theire advice & helpe herein to 
the next session of this Generall Court, which will alwayes be zealous acording to 
theire duty to giue theire testimony to euery truth of Jesus Christ, though they cannot 
se light to impose any formes as necessary to be obserued by the churches as a bind- 
inge rule.” 


Little as this cautious vote seems to indicate any disposition 
of the General Court to be domineering over the churches, there 
were four of the deputies, including the representatives of the town 
and church of Boston, who voted against it.’ 

The ministers met duly, at some uncertain date that summer, 
and having considered the objections referred to them by the 
Court, they “appointed Mr. Richard Mather to draw up an answer 
to them” [the criticisms]; and this ‘answer by him composed, and 
by the rest approved, was given in’’* to the Court at its October 
session, 1651. And now, more than three years after the close of 
the Synod, the Court finally put the stamp of its approval on the 
Platform, yet in no mandatory way. On October 14 it voted:” 


‘“Whereas this Court did, in the yeare 1646, giue encouragment for an assem- 
bly of the messengers of the churches in a synode, and did desire theire helpe to draw 
vpp a confession of the fayth & discipline of the churches, according to the word of 
God, which was p’sented to this Court, & comended to the seuerall churches, many of 
whom returned theire approbation & assent to the sd draught in generall, & diverse of 
the churches p’sented some objections & doubtes agaynst some perticulers in the sd 


ekecords: 7). « | Jlass. Bay; lil 235, 236; 1V: 54, 55. 

2 John Leverett and Thomas Clarke of Boston, William Tyng of Braintree, and Jeremiah 
Hutchins of Hingham. It is evident that at Boston and Hingham feeling against the Synod still 
continued. 

3 Magnalia, ed. 1853-5, 11: 237. The manuscript, in Mather’s handwriting, is at Wor- 
cester. 

4 Records, II1: 240; IV: 57, 58. 


188 THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


draught, wherevppon, by order of this Court, the sd objections were commended to 
the consideraco of the elders, to be cleared & remoued, who haue returned theire 
answer in writinge, which the Court, havinge p’vsed, doe thankfully acknowledge 
theire learned paynes therein, & account themselues called of God (especially at this 
time, when the truth of Christ is so much opposed in the world) to giue theire testi- 
mony to the sd Booke of Discipline, that for the substance thereof it is that we haue 
practised & doe beleeue.” 


The magistrates, always stronger than the deputies in their 
support of existing institutions in church and state, appear to have 
passed the resolution without dissent ; but, spite of its inoffensive 
form, fourteen of the forty deputies voted against its adoption.’ 
But with this action of the Court the Cambridge Platform became 
the recognized, if not the unquestioned,’ pattern of ecclesiasti- 
cal practice in Massachusetts. Endorsed, “for the substance of 
it,” by the Reforming Synod in September, 1679,°* it continued the 
legally recognized standard till 1780. 

Unfortunately the absence of any mention of action concern- 
ing the Platform in the contemporary records of the colonies of 
Plymouth;-Connecticut, and New Haven veils the story of its re- 
ception in those jurisdictions. But a considerable, though uncer- 
tain, number of the ministers and laymen of those colonies had 
taken part in the sessions of the Synod, and there is no rea- 
son to suppose that the result was any less acceptable to their 
churches than to those of Massachusetts. Though written a cen- 
tury and a half later, the affirmation of Trumbull is doubtless 
essentially true that “— 


‘‘the ministers and churches of Connecticut and New Haven were present [at the 
Cambridge Synod], and united in the form of discipline which it recommended. By 
this Platform of discipline, the churches of New-England, in general, walked for 
more than thirty years.” 





1 William Hawthorne, Henry Bartholomew,* Salem; Thomas Clarke, John Leverett,* Bos- 
ton; Stephen Kinsley, William Tyng,* Braintree ; Richard Browne, Watertown; John Johnson, 
Roxbury; Esdras Reede,* Wenham; William Cowdry,* Reading; Walter Haynes,* Sudbury ; 
Roger Shaw,* Hampton, N. H.; John Holbrooke,* Weymouth; Jeremiah Hutchins, Hingham. 
Where marked * the whole delegation of the town voted negatively. : 

2 Mather, agnadia, 11: 237-247, gives four points, a, the Platform’s lack of clearness re- 
garding the right of a minister to dispense the sacraments to any congregation not his own; J, its 
assertion of the distinct office of ruling elders; c, the practice of ordaining at the hands of the 
brethren of the local church rather than of ministers of other churches; d, the use of personal rela- 
tions and confessions in the admission of members ; as cases in which the thought of the churches 
in his day varied from the Platform. 

3 Result of Synod of 1679, in Necessity of Reformation, etc., Boston, 1679, Epistle Dedica- 
tory, p. v; see also Magnadia, I1: 237. 

4 Trumbull, Wzstory of Connecticut, New Haven, 1818, I: 289. 


TneeeGalMBRIDGE SYMBOBS 
THE TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS OF 1646 (LZx¢racts) 


The Result of the Disputations of the Synod, or Assembly, at Cambridge in 
New England, Begun upon the first day of the 7* Month, An. Dom. 1646. About 
the power of the Civill Magistrate tn matters of the first Table, and also about 
the grounds of Synods, with their power, and the power of calling of them. Being 
drawn up by some of the Members of the Assembly, deputed thereunto, and being 
distinctly read in the Assembly, it was agreed thus farre onely, That they should be 
commended unto more serious consideration against the next Meeting. 


Ouching the Question of the Civill Magistrate in matters of Religion, we 
shall crave leave to narrow and limit the state of it in the mannner of the 
Proposall of it, and shall therefore propound it thus. 

Quest, Whether the Civil Magistrate in matters of Religion, or of the first [2] 
Table, hath power civilly to command or forbid things respecting the outward man, 
which are clearly commanded and forbidden in the word, and to inflict sutable pun- 
ishments, according to the nature of the transgressions against the same, and all this 
with reference to godly peace ? 

Answ. The want of a right stating of this Question, touching the Civil Mag- 
istrates power in matters of Religion, hath occasioned a world of Errours, tending to 
infringe the just power of the Magistrate, we shall therefore explaine the termes of 
the Question, and then confirme it in the Affirmative. 

By ['Commanding, Forbidding, and Punishing| we meane the coercive power 
of the Magistrate, which is seen in such acts. By |JZatters of Religion commanded 
or forbidden in the word, respecting the outward man] we understand indefinitely, 
whether those of Doctrine or Discipline, of faith or practice; his power is not limited 
. to such matters of Religion onely, which are against the light of Nature, or against 
the Law of Nations, or against the fundamentalls of Religion; all these are matters 
of Re-[3]ligion, which may be expressed by the outward man, but not onely these ; 
therefore we say not barely thus [/ matters of the first Table| but joyn therewith 
[Jn matters of Religion] that all ambiguity may be avoided, and that it may be un- 
derstood as well of matters which are purely Evangelicall, so far as expressed by 
the outward man, as well as of other things. And we say, [Commanded or forbid- 
den in the word | meaning of the whole word, both of the Old and New Testament; 
exception being onely made of such things which were meerly Ceremoniall, or other- 
wise peculiar to the Jewish polity, and cleered to be abolished in the New Testa- 
ment: By which limitation of the Magistrates power to things commanded or for- 
bidden in the word, we exclude any power of the Magistrate, either in command- 
ing any new thing, whether in doctrine or discipline, or any thing in matters of Re- 
ligion, which is beside or against the word, or in forbidding any thing which is ac- 
cording to the word. 





2 J insteadot™ °”’. 


( 189 ) 


Ig0 THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


1 Hence he is not to mould up and impose what Erastian forme of Church 
polity he pleaseth; because if there be [4] but one form commanded now of God, 
he cannot therefore command what forme he will. 

2 Hence he is not to force all persons into the Church, or to the participation 
of the seals; because he is not thus commanded. 

3 Hence he is not to limit to things indifferent, which are neither commanded, 
nor forbidden in the word, without apparent expediency or inexpediency of attend- 
ing the same. By that expression [cleerly] commanded or forbidden in the word, 
we understand that which is cleer, either by express words, or necessary Consequence 
from the Scripture; and we say cleerly commanded or forbidden in the word. Not 
simply that which the Magistrate or others think to be cleerly commanded or for- 
bidden; for they may thinke things commanded, to be forbidden, and things forbid- 
den to be commanded; but that which is in it selfe in such sort cleer in the word, 
de gure, the Civil Magistrate in these days since Christs ascension, may and ought 
to command and forbid such things so cleared in the word, albeit de facto, oft-times 
he doe [5] not. [Swutably inflicting punishments according to the nature of the 
transgressions| This clause needeth not much explication, being so plaine of it 
selfe; some things commanded and forbidden in the Law of God, are of -a smaller 
nature in respect of the Law of man, and in this respect ’tis true which is often said, 
that De minimis non curat lex, 2. e. Mans Law looks not after small matters, but 
other things commanded or forbidden in Gods Law, are momentous, and of a higher 
nature, and though small in themselves, yet weighty in the consequence or circum- 
stance. And in this case if he inflict a slight paper punishment when the offence is 
of an high nature; or contrariwise, when he inflicts that which is equivalent to a 
capitall punishment, when the offence is of an inferiour nature, he doth not punish 
sutably. There are sundry rules in the word in matters of this sort, as touching the 
punishment of Blasphemy, Idolatry, Heresie, prophanation of the Lords day, and 
sundry other like matters of Religion, according to w** Magistrates of old have 
held, and others now may observe proportions, in ma-[6] king other particular Laws 
in matters of Religion, with sanctions of punishments, and inflicting the same, they 
inflict sutable punishments. . . . . [7] . . . .. By this, which hath ibeen 
already spoken touching the acts and rule of the Magistrates coercive power in mat- 
ters of Religion, the impertinency and invalidity of many objections against this his | 
power will appear, asia = . [8] . . . . 3. That thereby tyranngeeeeee 
ercised over mens tender consciences, and true liberty of conscience is infringed ; 
when as he de jure commands nothing but that which, if men have any tendernesse 
of conscience, they are bound in conscience to submit thereto, and in faithfull sub- 
mitting to which is truest liberty of conscience, conscience being never in a truer or 
better estate of liberty here on earth, than when most ingaged to walke according 
to Gods Commandementss ieee. [ol . . . |. . [to] 0. 7 Gee 
thereby the civill Magistrate is put upon many intricate perplexities & hazards of 
conscience, how to judge in and of matters of Religion. 

But this doth not hinder the Magistrate from that use of his coercive power, in 
matters commanded or forbidden in the first Table, no more then it doth hinder him 
from the like power in matters of the second Table;' none being ignorant what per- 
plexing intricacies there are in these as well as in the former ; as conscientious Mag- 





1 It need scarcely be pointed out that what is signified are the actions, murder, adultery, 
theft, falsewitness, etc., which are the subjects of criminal law as well as of the second half of the 
Commandments, Axodus, XX : 12-17. 


THE CONCLUSIONS OF 1646 1QI 


istrates finde by dayly experienceme. . [11]: « . [12]is,. [43]... [14] 
11. That thereby we shall incourage and harden Pafists and Zurés in their cruell 
persecutions of the Sazzts ; whereas for the Magistrate to command -or forbid ac- 
cording to God, as it is not persecution, so neither doth it of it selfe, tend to perse- 
cution. Power to presse the Word of God and his truth, doth not give warrant to 
suppresse or oppresse the same : the times are evill indeed when the pressing of obe- 
dience to the rule shall be counted persecution. . . . . [15-19] . . . Will 
not this 7es¢s arme and stir up the Civill power in Old Luxgland, against godly 
Orthodox ones of the Congregationall way: or exasperate Civill power in Vew /ng- 
land, against godly, moderate, and Orthodox Presbyterians, if any such should de- 
sire their liberty here? we conceive no,! except the civill disturbance of the more 
rigidly, unpeaceably, and corruptly minded, be very great; yet betwixt men godly 
and moderately minded on both sides, the difference upon true and due search is 
found so small, by judicious, Orthodox, godly, and moderate Divines, as that they 
may both stand together in peace and love; if liberty should be desired by either 
sort here or there so exercising their liberty, as the [20] publick peace be not in- 
fringed. 


[48] . . . . What be the grounds from Scripture to warrant Synods ? 
In answer to this Question, we shall propound to consideration three Arguments 
from Scripture, and five Reasons. 


Arguments. 


Augum.:%t Taken from Acts 15. An orderly Assembly of qualified Church- 
messengers (Elders and other Brethren) in times of controversie and danger, con- 
cerning weighty matters of Religion, for the considering, disputing, finding out and 
clearing of the truth, from the Scripture, and establishing of Peace amongst the 
Churches, is founded upon Acés 15. 

But a Synod is an orderly Assembly [etc.] . . . [49] . .- . Z7g0,A 
Synod is founded upon Acés 15. 


[63] . . . . WHat is the Power of a Synod? 
The Power of a Synod 
Decisive ] 
Is < Directive, & + of the truth, by 
Declarative 
clearing and evidencing the same out of the word of God, non coactive, yet more 
than discretive. 
For the better understanding hereof, consider that Ecclesiasticall Power is 
I Decisive, in determining by way of discussion and disputation, what is truth, 
and so consequently resolving [64] the Question in weighty matters of Religion, 
Acts 15, 16, 28. & 16. 4. This belongs to the Synod. 
2 Discretive, in discerning of the truth or falshood that is determined ; this 
belongs to every Believer. 





1 It will be remembered that the Presbyterians were now in power in England. Yet the 
course of events in New England had made the statement not wholly without justification. Wins- 
low in 1647 was able to cite the cases of the ministers of Newbury and Hingham as illustrations of 
toleration of Presbyterian views, Hypocriste Vumasked, pp. 99, 100. 


192 THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


3 Coactive or judicial (for we omit to speak in this place of Official judgement) 
in judging of the truth determined Authoritatively, so as to impose it with Authority, 
and to censure the disobedient with Ecclesiastical censure, I Cor. 5. 12. AZat. 18. 17. 
This belongeth to every particular Church. 

The judgement of a Synod is in some respect superiour, in some respect infe- 
riour to the judgement of a particular Church ; it is superiour in respect of direction ; 
inferiour in respect of jurisdiction, which it hath none. 

Quere. How, and how far doth the sentence of a Synod bind ? 

Answ. We must distinguish between the Synods declaration of the truth, and 
the politicall imposition of the truth declared by the Synod. 

The Synods declaration of the truth binds not folitically, but formally onely, 
[65] (¢.¢.) 2 foro interiori (.e.) it binds the conscience, and that by way of the 
highest institution that is meerly doctrinall, The politicall Imposition of the truth 
declared by the Synod, is Ecclesiasticall, or Civill: Ecclesiasticall, by particular 
Churches, and this binds not onely formally, but politically, 2 foro exteriort, 2. e. 
it binds the outward man, so as the disobedient in matters of offence, is subject unto 
Church censure, affirmatively, towards their own Members; negatively, by non com- 
munion, as concerning others, whether Church or Members. Civil, by the Magis- 
trate strengthening the*truth thus declared by the Synod, and approved by the 
Churches, either by his meer Authoritative suffrage, assent, and testimony, (if the 
matter need no more) or by his authoritative Sanction of it by Civill punishment, 
the nature of the offence so requiring. 


[66] . . Zo whom belongeth the power of calling a Synod? 

Answ. For satisfaction to this Question, we shall propound one distinction, 
and answer three Queries. 

Distin: The power of calling Synods is either 
y- ( Authoritative, belonging to the Magistrates. 
Singles sew : 4 

( Ministeriall, belonging to the particular Churches. 

Mixt When both proceed orderly and joyntly in the use of their severall powers. 


[70] Queries. 

Querte 1 Ln what case may the Magistrate proceed to call a Synod without 
the consent of the Churches ? 

Answ. The Magistrate in case the Churches be defective, and not to be pre- 
vailed with, for the performance of their duty, (just cause so requiring) may call a 
Synod, and the Churches ought to yield obedience thereunto. 

[71] But notwithstanding the refusall, he may proceed to call an Assembly, 
and that for the same end that a Synod meetes for, namely, to consider of, and clear 
the truth from the Scriptures, in weighty matters of Religion: But such an Assembly 
called and gathered without the consent of the Churches, is not properly that which 
is usually understood by a Synod, for though it be in the power of the Magistrate to 
Call, yet it is not in his power to Constitute a Synod, without at least the implicite 
consent of the Churches: Because Church-Messengers, who necessarily presuppose 
an explicite (which order calls for) or implicite consent of the Churches, are essen- 
tiall to a Synod. 

Querte 2 Ln what case may the Churches call a Synod without the consent of 
the Magistrate ? 


THE CONCLUSIONS OF 1646 193 


[72] Anszw. In case the Magistrate be defective, and not to be prevailed with 
for the performance of his duty ; just cause, providence, and prudence concurring : 
The Churches may both Call and Constitute a Synod : The Reason why the 
Churches can Constitute a Synod without the consent of the Magistrate, although 
the Magistrate cannot constitute a Synod without the consent of the Churches, is 
because the essentialls of a Synod, together with such other cause, as is required 
to the being (though not so much to the better being) of a Synod, ariseth out of par- 
ticular churches. es 

[74] Querte 3 In case the Magistrate and Churches are both willing to proceed 
orderly in the jot exercise of their severall Powers, whether tt is lawfull for 
either of then to call a Synod without the Consent of the other ? 

Answ. No; they are to proceed now by way ofa mixt Call. . . . .. . 


The Churches desire, the Ma-[75]gistrate Commands; Churches 
act in a way of liberty, the Ma- 
gistrate in a way of Authority. 
Moses and Aaron should 
goe together, and kiss 
one another in 
the Mount of 
GOD. 


- 


Me Mie) 2s ) tf 


194 THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


THE CAMBRIDGE PLATFORM, 1648 


A | PLaTrorM oF | CHURCH DISCIPLINE | GATHERED 
OUT.OF THE WORD OF GOD:|AND AGREED UPON BY THE 
ELDERS: | AND MESSENGERS OF THE CHURCHES | ASSEMBLED IN 
THE SYNOD AT CAMBRIDGE | /V VEW ENGLAND | Tobe presented 
to the Churches and Generall Court | for their consideration and ac- 
ceptance, | in the Lord. | The Eighth Moneth Anno 1649 | | 
Psal: 84 1. How amiable are thy Tabernacles O Lord of Hosts? | Psal: 
26.8. Lord I have loved the habitation of thy house & the | place where thine 
honour dwelleth.| Psal: 27. 4. One thing have I desired of the Lord 
that will IT seek | after, that L may dwell in the house of the Lord all 
the | dayes of my life to behold the Beauty of the Lord & to | inquire 
in his Temple. | | Printed by S G at Cambridge in New Eng- 
land | and are to be sold at Cambridge and Boston | Anno Dom : 1649. 
[ii Blank] 








THE 
PREFACE’ 


THE setting forth of the Publick Confession of the Faith of 
Churches hath a double end, & both tending to publick edification. first 
the maintenance of the faith entire within it self: secondly the holding 
forth of Unity & Harmony, both amongst, & with other Churches. 
Our Churches here, as (by the grace of Christ) wee beleive & profess 
the same Doctrine of the trueth of the Gospell, which generally ts 
received tn all the reformed Churches of Christ in Europe: so 
especially, wee desire not to vary from the doctrine of faith, & truth 
held forth by the churches of our native country. For though it be not 
one native country, that can breed vs all of one mind ; nor ought wee 
Jor to have the glorious faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons: 
yet as Paul who was himself a Jew, professed to hold forth the doctrine 
of justification by faith, & of the resurection of the dead, according as 
he knew his godly countrymen did, who were Lewes by nature (Galat. 2. 
15. Acts 26. 6, 7.) soe wee, who are by nature, English men, doe destre 
to hold forth the same doctrine of religion (especially in fundamentalls) 
which wee see & know to be held by the churches of England, according 
to the truth of the Gospell 

The more wee discern, (that which wee doe, & have cause to doe 
with incessant mourning & trembling) the unkind, & unbrotherly, & 
unchristian contentions of our godly brethren, & countrymen, in matters 
of church-government: the more ernestly doe wee desire to see them joyned 


1 This work, apparently the first specimen of the printing of Samuel Green of Cambridge, is 
thus truly characterized by Thomas, H7story of Printing in America, 2d ed., Albany, 1874, 1: 63, 
64, ‘‘ This book appears to be printed by one who was but little acquainted with the typographic 
art . . . the press work is very bad, and that of the case no better . . . the compositor did 
not seem to know the use of points . . . Letters of abbreviation are frequently used 
The spelling is very ancient.”’ 


PRESACE TO THE PLATFORM 195 


together. in one common faith, & our selves with them. For this end, 
having perused the publick confession of faith, agreed upon by the Rever- 
end assembly of Divines at Westminster, & finding the summ & substance 
therof (in matters of doctrine) to express not their own judgements only, 
but ours also: and being likewise called upon by our (gouly Magistrates, 
to draw up a publick confession of that faith, which ts constantly taught. 
& generaly professed amongst us, wee thought good to present unto 
them, & with them to our churches, & with them to all the churches of 
Christ abroad, our professed & hearty assent & attestation to the whole 
confession of faith ( for substance of doctrine) which the Reverend assem- 
bly presented to the Religious & Hi ononrable Parlamét of England: Ex- 
cepting only some sections in the 25 30 & 31. Chapters of their confesston, 
which concern points of controversie tn church-discipline ; Touching 
which wee refer our |2| selves to the draught of church-discpline in the 
ensucing treatise. 

The truth of what we here declare, may appear by the unanimous 
vote of the Synod of the Elders & messengers of our churches assembled 
at Cambridg, the last of the sixth month, 1648: which joyntly passed in 
these words ; This Synod having perused, & considered (with much 
gladness of heart, & thankfullness to God) the cofession of faith 
published of late by the Reverend Assembly in England, doe judge 
it to be very holy, orthodox, & judicious in ail matters of faith: & 
doe therfore freely & fully consent therunto, for the substance 
therof. Only in those things which have respect to church govern- 
ment & discipline, wee refer our selves to the platform of church- 
discipline, agreed upon by this present assébly: & doe therfore 
think it meet, that this confession of faith, should be comended to 
the churces of Christ amongst us, & to the Honoured Court, as 
worthy of their due consideration & acceptance. Howbeit, wee may 
not conceal, that the doctrine of vocation expressed in Chap 10. § 
1. & summarily repeated Chap, 13. & 1. passed not without some 
debate. Yet considering, that the term of vocation, & others by which tt 
as described, are capable of a large, or more strict sense, & use, and that 
wt 1s not intended to bind apprehensions precisely in point of order or 
method, there hath been a generall condescendency therunto. 

Now by this our professed consent & free concurrence with them tn 
all the doctrinalls of religion, wee hope, tt may appear to the world, that 
as wee are a remnant of the people of the same nation with them : so wee 
are professors of the same common faith, & fellow-heyres of the same 
common salvation. Yea moreover, as this our profession of the same 
faith with them, will exempt us (even in their judgméts) from suspicion of 
heresy: s0 (wee trust) tt may exempt us in the like sort from suspicion 
of schism: that though wee are forced to dissent from them in matters 
of church-discipline : by et our dissent is not taken up out of arrogancy of 
spirit in our selves (whom they see willingly condescend to learn of them :) 
neither ts it carryed with uncharitable censoriousness towards them, 
(40th which are the proper, & essentiall charracters of schism) but tn 
meekness of wisdom, as wee walk along with them, & follow them, as 
they follow Christ: so where wee conceiv a different apprehention of the 
mind of Christ (as it falleth out in some few points touching church- 


196 THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


order) wee still reserve due reverence to them (whom wee judge to be, 
through Christ, the glorious lights of both nations :) & only crave leave 
(as in spirit wee are bound) to follow the Lamb withersoever he goeth, 
& (after the Apostles example) as wee beleive, so wee speake., . 

And if the example of such poor outcasts as our selves, might pre- , 
vaile tf not with all (for that were too great a blessing to hope for) yet 
wrth some or other of our brethren in England, so farr as they are come 
to mind & speake the same thing with such as dissent from them, wee 
hope in Christ, it would not onely moderate the harsh judging [3] and 
condemning of one another in such differences of judgment, as may be 
found tn the choysest saints: but also prevent (by the mercy of Christ) the 
perill of the distraction & destruction of all the churches in both king- 
doms. Otherwise, tf brethren shall goe on to bite & devoure one another, 
the Apostle feared (as wee also, with sadness of heart doe) it will tend 
to the consuming of them, & us all; which the Lord prevent. 

Wee are not ignorant, that (besides these aspertions of Heresy & 
Schism) other exceptions also are taken at our way of church-govern- 
ment: but (as wee conceive) upon as little ground. 

As 1 That by admitting none into the fellowship of our 
Church, but saints by calling, wee Rob many parish-churches of 
their best members, to make up one of our congregations: which 
is not only, to gather churches out of churches (a thing unheard 
of in Scripture:) but also to weaken the hearts & hands of the best 
Ministers in the parishes, by dispoyling them of their best hearers. 

2 That wee provide no course for the gayning, & calling in, of 
ignorant, & erronious, & scandalous persds, whom wee refuse to 
receive into our churches, & so exclude from the wholsom remedy 
of church-discipline. 

3 That in our way, wee sow seeds of division & hindrance of 
edificati6 in every family: whilst admitting into our churches only 
voluntaries, the husbad will be of one church, the wife of another: 
the parents of one church, the children of another the maister of 
one church, the servants of another. And so the parents & mais- 
ters being of different churches from their children & servants, 
they cannot take a just account of their profiting by what they 
heare, yea by this meanes the husbands, parents, & maisters, shall 
be chargable to the maintenace of many other churches, & church- 
officers, besides their own: which will prove a charge & burden 
unsupportable. 

But for Answer, as to the first. For gathering churches out of 
churches, wee cannot say, that ts a thing unheard of tn Scripture. The 
jirst christian church was gathered out of the Jewish church, & out of 
many Synagogues tn that church, & consisted partly of the Inhabitants 
of Lerusalem, partly of the Galileans: who though they kept some com- 
muntion in some parts of publick worship with the Temple: yet neither 
aid they frequent the Sacrifices, nor repair to the Sanedrim for the de- 
termining of their church-causes : but kept entire & constant communion 
with the Apostles church in all the ordinances of the gospell. And for 
the first christian church of the Gentiles at Antoch, tt appeareth to have 
been gathered & constituted partly of the dispersed brethren of the church 


PREFACE TO THE PLATFORM 197 


at Lerusalem (wherof some were men of Cyprus, and Cyrene) & partly 
of the beleiving Gentiles. Acts. II. 20, 21. 

If it be said the first christian church at Ierusalem, & that at 
Antioch were gathered not out of any christian church, but out of 
the Jewish Temple and [4] Synagogues, which were shortly after 
to be abolished: & their gathering to Antioch, was upon occasion 
of dispersion in time of persecution. 

Wee desire, tt may be considered, 1 That the members of the Jewish 
Church were more strongly and straitly tyed by express holy covenant, to 
keep fellowship with the Lewish church, till it was abolished, then any 
members of christian parish-churches are wont to be tyed to keep 
fellowship with thetr partsh-churches. The Episcopall Canons, which bind 
them to attend on theter parish church, tt ts likely they are now abolished 
with the Lpiscopacy. The common Law of the Land ts satisfyed (as wee 
concive) if they attend upon the worship of God in any other church 
though not within thetr own parish. But no such like covenant of God, 
nor any other religtous tye lyeth upon them to attend the worship of God 
in thetr own parish church, as did lye upon the Lewes to attend upon the 
worship of God tn their Temple and Synagogues. 

2 Though the Lewtsh Temple Church at Lerusalem was to be 
abolished, yet that doeth not make the desertion of tt by the members, to be 
lawfull, till it was abolished. Future abolition ts no warrant for present 
desertid : unless tt be lawfull in some case whilest the church ts yet in 
present standing to desert tt ; to witt, ether for avoyding of present polu- 
tions, or for hope of greater edification, and so for better satisfaction to 
conscience in either |.\ future events (or foresight of them) do not disolve 
present relations. Else wives, children, servants, might desert their hus- 
bands, parents, masters, when they be mortally sick. 

3 What the members of the Lewish church did, tn joyning to the 
church at Antioch, in time of persecution, tt may well be concived, the 
members of any christian church may do the like, for satisfaction of con- 
science. Peace of conscience is more desirable, then the peace of the out- 
ward man: and freedome from scruples of consciéce ts more comfortable 
to a sincere heart, then freedome from persecution. 

If it be said, these members of the Christian Church at Ieru- 
salem, that joyned to the church at Antioch, removed their habita- 
tions together with their relations: which if the brethren of the 
congregationall way would doe, it would much abate the grievance 
of their departure from their presbyteriall churches. 

Wee verily could wish them so to doe, as well approving the like re- 
movall of habitations, tn case of changing church-relations (provided, that 
it may be done without too much detriment to their outward estates) and 
wee for our partes, have done the same. But to put a necessity of re- 
movall of habitation in such a case, it ts to foment and cherish a corrupt 
principle of making civil cohabitation, tf not a formall cause, yet at least 
a proper adjunct of church-relation ; which the truth of the Gospel doeth 
not acknowleds. Now to foment anerrour to the prejudice of the trueth 
of the Gospell, ts not to walke with a right foot according to the truth 
of the Gospel, as Paul judgeth. Galat. 2. 14. 

[5] 4 Wee do not think it meet, or safe, for a member of a pres- 


198 THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


byteriall Church, forthwith to desert his relation to his Church, betake 
himself to the fellowshtp of a Congregationall Church, though he may 
discern some defect in the estate, or government of his owne. 

For 1. Faithfullness of brotherly love in Church-relation, re- 
quireth, that the members of the Church should first convince 
their brethren of their sinfull defects, & duely wait for their ref- 
ormation, before they depart from them. For if wee must take 
such a course for the healing of a private brother, in a way of 
brotherly love, with much meekness, & patience: how more more 
ought wee so to walk with like tendrness, towards a whole church. 

Again 2 By the hasty departure of sound members from a 
defective church, reformation is not promoted, but many times re- 
tarded, & corruption increased. Wheras on the contrary, while 
sincere members breathing after purity of reformation abide to- 
gether, they may (by the blessing of God upon their faithfull en- 
deavours) prevaile much with their Elders, & neighbours towards . 
a reformation; it may be, so much, as that their Elders in their 
own:church shall receive none to the Seales, but visible saints: and 
in the Classis shall put forth no authoritive act (but consultative 
only) touching the members of other churches: nor touching their 
own, but with the consent (silét consent at least) of their own 
church: which two things, if they can obteyn with any humble, 
meek, holy, faithfull endeavours, wee coceiv, they might (by the 
grace of Christ) find liberty of conscience to continue their rela- 
tion with their own presbyteriall church without scruple. 

5 But toadd a word farther, touching the gathering of Churches 
out of Churches, what if there were no express example of such a 
thing extant tn the Scriptures ? that which wee are wont to answer the 
Antipedobaptists, may suffice hear: tt 7s enough, tf any evidence therof 
may be gathered from just cosequenc of Scripture light. Doctor 
Ames his judgmet concerning this case, passeth (for ought wee know) 
wethout exceptio, which he gave in his 4 booke of cosciéce' in Ans to 
2! OU ee 

If any (saith he) wronged with unjust vexation, or providing 
for his own edificatid or in testimony against sin depart from a 
church where some evills are tollerated, & joyn himself to another 
more pure, yet without codemning of the church he leaveth, he is 
not therfore to be held as a schismatick, or as guilty of any other 
sinn. Where the Tripartite disjunction, which the judicious Doctor 
putteth, declareth the lawfullness of the departure of a Church-mem- 
ber from his church, when either through wearyness of unjust vexa- 
tion, or in way of provision for his own edification, or in testimony 
against sinn, he joyneth hinself to another congregation more re- 
formed. Any one of these, he gudgeth a just & lawfull cause of 
departure, [6| Though all of them do not concurr together. Neither 
will such a practise dispoyle the best Ministers of the parishes of their 
best hearers. 

For 1 Sometimes the Ministers themselves are willing to joyn 
with their better sort of hearers, in this way of reformation: & 


’ 





n 1 Dr. William Ames, De Consczentia, Amsterdam, 1635. The reference should be Q. 3: 
24s 


PRerACH TO THE PLATFORM 199 


then they & their hearers continue stil their Church relation to- 
gether, yea & confirm it more straitly & strongly, by an express 
renewed covenant, though the Ministers may still continue their 
wonted preaching to the whole parrish. 

2 If the Ministers do dislike the way of those, whom they 
otherwise count their best members, & so refuse to joyn with them 
therin; yet if those members can procure some other Ministers to 
joyn with them in their own way, & still continue their dwelling 
together in the same town, they may easily order the times of the 
publick assembly, as to attend constantly upon the ministery of 
their former Church: & either after or before the publick assembly 
of the parish take an opportunity to gather together for the admin- 
istratid of Sacraméts, & Censures, & other church ordinances 
amongst themselves. The first Apostolick church assembled to 
hear the word with the Jewish church in the open courts of the 
Temple: but afterwards gathered together for breaking of bread, 
& other acts of church-order, from house to house. 

3 Suppose, Presbyteriall churches should cOmunicate some of 
their best gifted members towards the erecting & gathering of 
another church: it would not forthwith be their detriment, but 
may be their enlargement. It is the most noble & perfect work of 
a living creature (both in nature & grace) to propagate, & multiply 
his kind: & it is the honour of the faithfull spouse of Christ, to set 
forward the work of Christ as well abroad as at home. The church 
in Cant. the 8. 8. to help forward her little sister-church, was will- 
ing to part with her choyse-materialls, even beames of Cedar, & 
such pretious living stones, as weer fit to build a Silver pallace. In 
the same book, the church is compared sometime to a garden, 
sometime to an orchard, Cant 4. 12,13. No man planteth a gar- 
den, or orchard, but seeketh to get the choysest herbes, & plants 
of his neighbours, & they freely impart them: nor doe they accoit 
it a spoyle to their gardens, & orchards, but rathera glory. Never- 
theless, wee go not so farr: we neither seek, nor ask the choyse- 
members of the parishes but accept them being offered. 

Lf it be said, they are not offered by the Ministers, nor by the 
parish churches (who have most right in thenc) but only by themselves. 

It may justly be demaunded, what right, or what powr have 
either the ministers, or parish church over them? Not by solemn 
church covenant: for that, though it be the firmest engagement, 
is not owned, but rejected. If it be, by [7] Their joyning with the 
parish, in the calling & election of a minister to such a congrega- 
tion at his first comming, there is indeed just weight in such an 
ingagement: nor doe wee judge it safe for such to remove from 
such a minister, unless it be upon such grounds, as may justly give 
him due satisfactid. But if the unid of such members to a parish 
Church, & to the ministery therof, be only by cohabitation within 
the precincts of the parish, that union, as it was founded upo hu- 
mane law: so by humane law it may easily be released. Or other- 
wise, if a man remove his habitation, he removeth also the bond of 
his relation, & the ground of offence. 


200 THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


4 It need not to be feared, that all best hearers of the best 
ministers, no nor the most of them, will depart from them upon 
point of church-govermét. ‘Those who have found the presence & 
powr of the spirit of Christ breathing in their ministers, either to 
their conversion, or edification, will be slow to change such a min- 
istry of faith, & holyness, for the liberty of church-order. Upon 
which ground, & sundry other such like, their be doubtless sundry 
godly & judicious hearers in many parishes in England that doe 
& will prefer their relation to their ministers (though in a presby- 
teriall way) above the Congregationall confcederation. 

5 But if all, or the most part of the best hearers of the best 
ministers of parishes, should depart from them, as prefering in 
their judgments, the congregationall way: yet, in case the congre- 
gationall way should prove to be of Christ, it will never greiv the 
holy hearts of godly ministers, that their hearers should follow 
after Christ: yea many of themselves (upon due deliberation) will 
be reaedy to go along with them. It never greived, nor troubled 
John Baptist, that his best disciples, departed from him to follow 
after Christ. Joh. 3. But in case the congregationall way should 
prove to be, not the institution of Christ (as wee take it) but the 
invétion of men: then doubtless, the presbyteriall form (if it be of 
God) will swallow up the other, as Moses rod devoured the rods of 
the A.gyptians. Nor will this put a necessity upon both the oppo- 
site partyes, to shift for themselves, & to seek to supplant one 
another: but only, it will call upon them dAnOebev év ayarn to seek 
& to follow the trueth in love, to attend in faithfullness each ito 
his own flock, & to administer to them all the holy things of God, 
& their portio of food in due season: & as for others, quietly to 
forbear them, & yet to instruct them with meekness that are con- 
trary minded: leaving it to Christ (in the use of all good meanes) 
to reveal his own trueth in his own time: & mean while endeavour- 
ing to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. PAz/ep. 3. 
15, 10.5 Ve estas ced.; 3. 

[8] To the 2 Exception, That wee take no course for the 
gayning & healing & calling in of ignorant, & erronious, & scandal- 
ous persos, whom wee refuse to receive into our churches & so ex- 
clude them from the rémidy of church-disciplie. 

Wee conceive the receiving of them into our churches would rather 
loose & corrupt our Churches, then gain & heale them. A little 
leaven layed tn a lump of dough, will sooner leaven the whole lump, 
then the whole lump will sweeten tt. Wee therefore find it safer, to 
square rough & unhewen stones, before the| y\ be layed into the butld- 
ing, rather then to hammer & hew them, when they lye unevenly in 
the building. 
| And accordingly, two meanes (wee use to gayn & call in such as 
are tgnorat or scandalous. 1 The publick ministery of the word, upon 
which they are invited by counsel, & required by wholsome lawes to 
attend. And the word tt ts, which is the powr of God to salvation, 
to the calling & winning of soules. 2 Private conference, & con- 
viction by the Elders, & other able brethren of the church : whom they 


PREFACE TO THE PLATFORM 201 


doe the more respectively hearken unto, when they see no hope of en- 
joying church-fellowship, or participation tn the Sacraments for them- 
selves, or thetr children, till they approve their judgments to be sound 
c> orthodox, & their lives subdued to some hope of a godly conver- 
sation. What can Classical discipline, or excommunication it selfe do 
more tn this case. 

The 3 Exception wrappeth up in ita three fold domestical in- 
convenience: & each of them meet to be eschewed. 1 Disunion 
in families between each relation: 2 Disappointmét of edificati6, 
for want of opportunity in the governours of familyes to take ac- 
cout of things heard by their children & servants. 3 Disburs- 
ments of chargeable maintenance to the several churches, wherto 
the several persons of their familyes are joyned. 

All which inconveniences either do not fall out in congregationall- 
churches ; or are easily redressed. For none are orderly admitted 
tnto congregational-churches, but such as are well approved by good 
testimony, to be duly observant of famtly-relations. Or of any other- 
wise disposed should creep in, they are either orderly healed, or duly 
removed in a way of Christ. Nor are they adnitted, unless they 
can give some good account of their profiting by ordinances, before the 
Lilders & brethren of the church: & much more to their paréts, & 
masters. Godly Tutors tn the university can take an account of their 
pupils: & godly housholders in the Citty can take account of their 
children & servants, how they profit by the word they have heard tn 
several churches: & that to the greater edification of the whole family, 
by the variety of such administrations. Bees may bring more hony, 
cr wax into the hive, when they are not limited to one garden of 
flowers, but may fly abroad to many. 

Vor ts any charge expected from wives, children, or servants to 
the maintenance of congregationall churches, further then they be fur- 
nished with personall estates, or earnings, which may enable then to 
contribute of such things as they have, & not of |g] Such as they have 
not. God accepteth not Robbery for a sacrifice. And though a godly 
housholder may justly take hinselfe bound tn conscience, to contribute 
to any such Church, wherto his wife, or children, or servants doe stand 
wm relation: yet that will not aggravate the burden of his charge, no 
more then tf they were received members of the same Church wherto 
himself ts related. 

But why doe wee stand thus long to plead exemptions from ex- 
ceptions ? the Lord help all his faithfull servants (whether presbytertall, 
or congregationall) to judge & shame our selves before the Lord for 
all our former complyances to greater enormityes in Church-govern- 
ment, then are to be found either in the congregationall, or presbyteriall 
way. And then surely, either the Lord will cleare up his own will to 
us, & so frame, & subdue us all to one mind, G& one way, (Ezek. 
43. 10, 11.) or else wee shall learn to beare one anothers burdens in a 
spirit of meekness. St will then doubtless be farr from us, so to attest 
the discipline of Christ, as to detest the disciples of Christ: so to con- 
tend for the seameless coat of Christ, as to crucifie the living members 

14 


202 THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


of Christ: soe to divide our selves about Church communion, as through 
breaches to opena wide gap for a deluge of Antichristian & prophane 
malignity to swallow up both Church & civil state. 

What shall wee say more? is difference about Church-order 

becom the inlett of all the disorders in the kingdom? hath the Lord 
indeed left us to such hardness of heart, that Church-government shall 
become a snare to Zion, (as somtimes Moses was to Atgypt, Exod. 
10. 7.) that wee cannot leave contesting & contending about tt, till the 
kingdom be destroyed? did not the Lord Jesus, when he dedicated his 
sufferings for his church, & his also unto his father, make tt his earn- 
est & only prayer for us in this world, that wee all might be one in 
him? John. 17. 20, 21, 22, 23. And zs it possible, that he (whom 
the Father heard alwayes, John. 11. 42.) should not have this last 
most solemn prayer heard, & graunted? or, shall it be graunted for 
all the saints elsewhere, & not for the saints in England ; so that 
amongst them adisunion shall grow even about Church-union, & 
communion? If it ts possible, for a little faith (so much as a grain 
of mustardseed ) to remove a mountaine: ts it not possible, for so much 
strength of faith, as ts to be found in all the godly in the kingdom, to 
remove those lnages of jealousie, €& to cast those stumbling-blockes 
out of the way, which may hinder the free passage of brotherly love 
amongst brethren? It ts true indeed, the National covenant’ doth 
justly engage both partyes, faithfully to endeavour the utter extirpa- 
tion of the Antichristia Flerarchy, & much more of all Blasphemyes, 
flerestes, ¢ damnable errours. Certainly, if congregational disct- 
pline be Independent fron the inventions of men, ts tt not much more 
Independent from the delusions of Satan? what fellowship hath Christ 
with Belial? light with darkness? trueth with errour? The faith- 
Jull Iewes needed not the help of the Samaritans, to [10] Reedify the 
Temple of God: yea they rejected their help when tt was offered. 
Ezra the 1, 2, 3. And tf the congregationall way be a way of 
trueth (as wee believe) & if the brethren that walk in it be zealous 
of the trueth, & hate every false way (as by the rule of their holy dis- 
cipline they are instructed, 2 John. 10, 11.) then verily, there ts no 
branch in the Nationall covenant, that engageth the covenanters to ab- 
hore either Congregationall Churches, or their way: which being 
duely admintstred, doe no less effectually extirpate the Antichristian 
flierarchy, & all Blasphemies, Hleresyes, & pernicious errours, 
then the other way of discipline doeth, which is more generally & 
publickly received & ratifyed. 
But the Lord Jesus commune with all our hearts in secret: & he who 
is the King of his Church, let him be pleased to exercise his Kingly 
powr in our spirites, that so his kingdome may come into our 
Churches in Purity & Peace. Amen. Amen. 





17, e, The Scotch Covenant, adopted by Parliament, to secure Scotch aid in its struggle 
with the King, in Sept., 1643. 


TEXT OF THE PLATFORM 203 


Great teh I. 


Of the form of Church-Government; and that it zs one, 
immutable, and prescribed in the Word of God. 


I 


Ecclesiasticall Polity or Church Government, or dis- Ezek 43, x1 
cipline is nothing els, but that Forme & order that is tor Tim}, 15 
be observed in the Church of Christ vpon earth, both for 
the Constitution of it, & all the Administrations that 
therein are to bee performed. 

2 Church-Government is Considered in a double re- 
spect either in regard of the parts of Government them- 
selves, or necessary Circumstances thereof. The parts of 
Government are prescribed in the word, because the Lord Hetr 3, s, 6 
TIesus Christ the King and Law-giver of his Church, is no 
less faithfull in the house of God then was Moses, who Exod 25 40 
from the Lord delivered a form & pattern of Govern- 2 Tim 3 16 
ment to the Children of Israel in the old Testament: And 
the holy Scriptures are now also soe perfect, as they are 
able to make the man of God perfect & thorough-ly fur- 
nished vnto euery good work; and therefore doubtless 
to the well ordering of the house of God. 

3. The partes of Church-Government are all of them ape 


2 ; 4 hron 15 
exactly described in the word of God being parts or ag Ea 

‘ ; . 1d amuGers 
means of Instituted worship according to the second Com-v 16 Heb 12 


; 27 28. 1 Cor, 
mandement: & therefore to continue one & the same, 15 22 


vnto the apearing of our Lord Iesus Christ as a kingdom 
that cannot be shaken, untill hee shall deliver it up unto 
(oameucn the Father... Soe that it is not left in the ee 3 
power of men, officers, Churches, or any state in ther Kings 12, 
world to add, or diminish, or alter any thing in the least * ~* 
measure therein. 

4 The necessary circumstances, as time & place &c ? Kings z2 


belonging unto order and decency, are not soe left unto !si 29 13. 


1 The same idea is expressed, though not in identical language, by Mather, 
Church-Government and Church-Covenant Discussed, (answer to XXXII Ques- 
tions,) London, 1643, p. 83. f 


204 


Col 2 22 23 
Acts 15 28 


Matt 15 9 
rt Cor zr 23 
c 8 34. 


1 Cor 14 26 
1 Cor 14 40 
1 CorarirA 
1 Cor 11 16 
1 Cor 14 12 
19. Acts 15 
28. 


Eph 1 22 23 
& 5 25 26 


30. Heb 12 


23. 


Rom 8 17. 
2 Tim 2 12 
c48. Eph 
622713; 


2 Tim 2 19. 
Rev 217 

x Cor 6 17. 
Eph 3 17. 
Rom 1, 8 

1 Thes rt 8 
Isay 2, 2 

rt Tim 6 12, 


Acts 19 1 
Colos 2, 5. 


heaven: 


THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


men as that under pretence [2] of them, they may thrust 
their own Inventions vpon the Churches: Being Circum- 
scribed in the word with many Generall limitations ; 
where they are determined in respect of the matter to 
be neither worship it self, nor Circumstances seperable 
from worship: in respect of their end, they must be cone 
vnto edification : in respect of the manner, decently, and 
in order, according to the nature of the things then 
selves, & Civill, & Church Custom. doth not euen nature 
it selfe teach you? yea they, are in some sort determinec 
particularly, namely that they be done in such a manner, 
as all Circumstances considered, is most expedient for 
edification : so, as if there bee no errour of man concern- 
ing their determination, the determining of them is to be 
accounted as if it were divine. 


SG ole Weieid BE 


Of the nature of the Catholick Church in Generall, & in 
speciall, of a particular visible Church. 


THe Catholick Church,’ is the whole company of 
those that are elected, redeemed, & in time effectually 
called from the state of sin & death vnto a state of 
Grace, & salvation in Iesus Christ. 

2. his church) is.,either  [1iumphaniaso. Militant. 
Triumphant, the number of them who are Gloryfied in 
Militant, the number of them who are conflict- 
ing with their enemies vpon earth. 

3. This Militant Church is to bee considered as In- 
visible, & Visible. Invisible, in respect of their relation 
wherin they stand to Christ, as a body unto the head, 
being united unto him, by the spirit of God, & faith in 
their hearts: Visible, in respect of the profession of 
their faith, in their persons, & in particular Churches: 
& so there may be acknowledged an universall visible 
Church.? 

4 The members of the Militant visible Church,’ con- 


1 Compare R. Mather, Afologie 
1643, Pp. II. 

2 7, e., The body of those who outwardly profess faith in Christ, viewed as 
brought into one class by that profession, but not as thereby organized into one visible 
body corporate. 

3 We may perhaps insert ave to de in conformity to the preceding paragraph. 


Jor Church-Covenant, London, 


TEXT OF THE PLATFORM 205 


sidered either as not yet in church-order, or as walking Matt 18 17. 
according to the church-order of the Gospel. In order,’ -“ o 
& so besides the spiritual union, & communion, com- 
mon to all believers, they injoy more over an union & 
communion ecclesiasticall-Political:? So wee deny an uni- 
versall visible church.® 

5 The state the members of the Militant visible Gen. 18 19 
church [3] walking in order, was either before the law, ”° 
Oeconomical, that is in families; or under the law, Na- 
tional: or, since the comming of Christ, only congre- 
gational:* (The term Independent, wee approve not:’) 
Therfore neither national, provincial, nor classical.° 

6 A Congregational-church, is by the institution Of. Cee 14, 23 


or : 14, 36 
Christ a part of the Militant-visible-church, consisting of 1 Cor: 1 2. 


a company of Saints by calling, united into one body, by Exo: 1956 
eu 

a holy covenant, for the publick worship of God, & the & 9 to aiid 
Acts. 2. 42, 


mutuall edification one of another, in the Fellowship of 1x Cor 14 26. 
the Lord Iesus.’ 


—— 


GaP 21 IT. 


Of the matter of the Visible Church Both inrespect of 
Quality and Quantity. 


Tue matter of a visible church are Saznts by calling.® 1Cor:* 2 
Ephe 1 1. 


2. By Saints, wee understand, Bee eS 
1 Such, as haue not only attained the knowledge of Rom. 5 


the principles of Religion, & are free from gros & open. ose 37: 
scandals, but also do together with the profession of Rom. 6 17 
their faith & Repentance, walk in blameles obedience to 

the word, so as that in charitable discretion they may be 


17, ¢., The members of the company of professed disciples of Christ on earth 
are to be considered in this treatise, not as isolated believers but as united in the cor- 
porate fellowships established by the Gospel. 

2 7, e., This Gospel-order implies the union of Christians into local covenanted 
corporations, 

3 7.¢., There is no corforate union and communion of all the professed followers © 
of Christ, only an association of local churches, if by the word church the organized 
body of believers is signified. Compare Mather, Church-Government and Church- 
Covenant Discussed, (Answer to XXXII Questions,) London, 1643, pp. 9, 10. 

4 Compare Cotton, Keyes, p. 30. 

5 See Cotton’s reasons why the fathers of New England disliked the name /x- 
dependent, Way of the Cong. Churches Cleared, pv 11. 

8 Compare Cotton, Way of the Churches, p. 2. 

7 Compare Mather, Afologie . . Jor Church-Covenant, pp. 3-5. 

8 Compare Mather, Church- ee and Church-Covenant Discussed, 
(Answer to XXXII Questions,) pp. 8, 9. 


206 


t.Com x 2: 
Phillip. x x, 
Collos 1 2. 


Ephes, 1 1. 
z Cor) 27513 
Rev. 1 14 15 


1 Cor 14 21 


Matt 18 17 


Rom 16 1 
1 Thesi tr 
Rev 2 8 c3 


1 Cor 16 1 
19-Gal'z,2 
2 Cor 8 x. 

r [hes 2, 14 


THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


accounted Saints by calling, (though perhaps some or 
more of them be unsound, & hypocrites inwardly :) be- 
Cause the members of such particular churches are com- 
monly by the holy ghost called Saints & faithfull brethren 
in Christ, and sundry churches haue been reproued for 
receiving, & suffering such persons to continu in fellow- 
ship amongst them, as have been offensive & scandal- 
ous: the name of God also by this means is Blasphemed : 
& the holy things of God defiled & Prophaned. the hearts 
of godly grieved : & the wicked themselves hardned : & 
holpen forward to damnation. the example of such doeth 
endanger the sanctity of others. A litle Leaven Leaven- 
eth the whole lump. 

2. The children of such, who are also holy.’ 

3 The members of churches though orderly consti- 
tuted, may in time degenerate, & grow corrupt & scan- 
dalous, which though they ought not to be tolerated in 
the church, yet their continuance therein, through the 
defect of the execution of discipline & Just censures, 
doth not immediately dissolv the being of the church, 
as appeares in the church of Israell, & the churches of 
Galatia & Corinth, Pergamus, G Thyatira. 

[4] 4 The matter of the Church in respect of it’s guan- 
tity ought not to be of gteater number then may ordinarily 
meet together conveniently’ in one place: nor ordinarily 
fewer, then may conveniently carry on Church-work. 
Hence when the holy Scripture maketh mention of the 
Saints combined into a church-estate, in a Zown or Cizty, 
where was but one Congregation, it usually calleth those 
Saints [the church|* in the singular number, as the church 
of the Zhessalonians the church of Smyrna, Philadelphia, 
& the like: But when it speaketh of the Saints ina Vaton, 
or Province, wherin there were sundry Congregations, It 
frequently & usually calleth them by the name of churches, 
in the plurall number, as the [churches| of Asia, Galatia, 
Macedonia, & the like: which is further confirmed by what 
is written of sundry of those churches in particular, how they 
were Assembled & met together the whole church in one 
place, as the church at /erusalem, the church at Antioch, 


1 Jéid., p. 20. 
2 Compare Cotton’s remarks, Way of the Churches, London, 1645, pp. 53, 54. 
3 ] szc, and later. 


EXT OFSTHE PLATFORM 207 


the church at Corinth, & Cenchrea, though it were more Acts 2 46 

neer to Corinth, it being the port thereof, & answerable to paces 

a Village, yet being a distinct Congregation from Corinth, Croce 

it had a church of its owne as well as Corenth had.’ Rouaan: 
5 Nor can it with reason be thought but that every 

church appointed & ordained by Crist, had a ministrie 

ordained & appointed for the same: & yet plain it is, 

that there were no ordinary officers appointed by Christ 

for any other, then Congregational churches: Elders being 

appointed to feed, not all flocks, but the particular flock of Acts2o 28. 

God over which the holy Ghost had made them the over- 

seers, & that flock they must attend, even the whole flock: 

& one Congregation being as much as any ordinary Elders 

can attend, therfore there is no greater Church then a 


Congregation, which may ordinarily meet in one place. 


CSAACP aaLNe 


Of the Form of A Visible Church & of Church Covenant. 


Saints by Calling, must have a Visible-Political-Union: pee oT 
i Abe eee 


amongst themselves, or else they are not yet a particular pe a 
church: as those similitudes hold forth, which Scripture 117°” 
makes use [5] of, to shew the nature of particular Churches: 
As a Body, A building, or House, Hands, Eyes, Feet, & other 
members must be united, or else, remaining seperate are 
not a body. Stones, Timber, though squared, hewen & 
pollished, are not an house, untill they are compacted & 
united: so Saints or believers in judgment of charity, are 
not a church, unless Orderly knit together.’ 

2 Particular churches cannot be distinguished one 
from another but by their formes. phesus is not Smyrna, 
& Pergamus Thyatira, but each one a distinct society of it Rev x 
self, having officers of their owne, which had not the charge 
of others: Vertues of their own, for which others are not 
praysed : Corruptions of their owne, for which others are 
not blamed.’ 

3 This Form is the Viszble Covenant, Agreement, Or Exod 19 5 


8, 
consent wherby they give up themselves unto the Lord, to Dep ae 





1 Compare Richard Mather and William Tompson’s Modest & Brotherly An- 
suver to Mr. Charles Herle hts Book, London, 1644, pp. 32, 33- 

2 Compare Mather, Afologie . . . for Church-Covenant, p. 5; Church- 
Government, p. 30. 

3 Compare /é7d., Afologie, p. 14. 


208 


Teme Zac hry 
14. Cap g I1 


Ephe 2, 19 
2 Cdr [Cor] 


II 2 


Gen 17 7. 
Deu 29 12 
13. Ephe 2, 


12 19 


Exod 19 5 
to8 & 24 32 
17. Iosh 24 
18 to 24 
Psal 50 5 
Neh 9 38 c 
zo 1. Gen 
17. Deu 2g. 


THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


the observing of the ordinances of Christ together in the 
same society, which is usually called the Church-Covenant ; 
For wee see not otherwise how members can have Church- 
power one over another mutually.’ 

The comparing of each particular church unto a C7véty, 
c& unto a Shouse,” seemeth to conclude not only a Form, 
but that thdt Form, is by way of a Covenant. 

The Covenant, as it was that which made the Family 
of Abraham and children of Israel to be a church and peo- 
ple unto God,’ so it is that which now makes the severall 
societyes of Gentil believers to be churches in these dayes. 

4 This Voluntary Agreement, Consent or Covenant (for 
all these are here taken for the same): Although the more 
express & plain it is, the more fully it puts us in mind of 
our mutuall duty, & stirreth us up to it, & leaveth lesse 
room for the questioning of the Truth of the Church-estate 
of a Company of professors, & the Truth of membership 
of particular persons: [6] ye¢ wee conceive, the substance 
of it is kept, where there is a real Agreement & consent, 
of a company of faithful persons to meet constantly 
together in one Congregation, for the publick worship of 
God, & their mutuall edification: which real agreement 
& consent they doe express by their constant practise in 
comming together for the publick worship of God, & by 
their religious subjection unto the ordinances of God there: 
the rather, if wee doe consider how Scripture covenants 
have been entred into, not only expressly by word of 
mouth, but by sacrifice; by hand writing, & seal; & also 
somtimes by silent consent, without any writing, or expres- 
sion of words at all.* 

5 This forme then being by mutuall covenant, it 
followeth, it is not faith in the heart, nor the profession of 
that faith, nor cohabitation, nor Baptisme;* 1 Not faith in 


the heart? becaus that is invisible:* 2 not a bare profes- 


sion; because that declareth them no more to be members 





1 Compare /ézd., and Cotton, Way of the Churches, pp. 2-4. 

2 Compare Mather, Afologze, pp. 10-13. 

3 Compare Jézd., 6, 7. 

4 Compare /ézd., pp. 36-41; and Mather, Church-Government and Church- 
Covenant Discussed, (Answer to No. 9, of the XXXII Questions,) pp. 24-28. The 
fathers of New England of Puritan education were careful to maintain the churchly 
character of English parish Assemblies. 

5 Insert that constitutes a church. 

6 Compare Mather, Afologze, pp. 16-20; and Church-Governmeent, p. 24. 


PEXT OFSTHRE PLATFORM 209 


of one church then of another:* 3 not Cohabitation; AZhe- 
zsts or /nfidels may dwell together with beleivers:? 4 not 
Baptism; because it presupposeth a church estate, as cir- 
cumcision in the old Testament, which gave no being unto 
the church, the church being before it, & in the wildernes 
without it. seals presuppose a covenant already in being, 
one person is a compleat subiect of Baptism: but one per- 
son is uncapable of being a church.’ 

6 All believers ought, as God giveth them oppor- Acts 247. &926. 
tunity there unto, to endeavour to joyn themselves unto ee 2 Ue 
a particular church & that in respect of the honour of 3:4 33"? 3® 
Jesus Christ, in his example, & Institution, by the pro-} {ona ys 
fessed acknowledgment of, & subiection unto the order & 
ordinances of the Gospel: as also in respect of their good 
of communion, founded upon their visible union, & con- 
taind in the promises of Christs special presence in the 
church: whence they have fellowship with him, & in him 
one with an other: also, for the keeping of them in the Pl 
way of Gods commandments, & recovering of them in Eph 4 16 
case of wandring, (which all Christs sheep are subiect to Matt Sb eien 
in this life), being unable to returne of themselves; to- 
gether with the benefit of their mutual edification, and of 
their posterity, that they may not be cut off from the 
priviledges of the covenant. otherwis, if a believer offends, 
he remaines destitute of the remedy provided in that be- 
half. & should all believers neglect this duty of joyning 
to all particular congregations: it might follow thereupon, 
that Christ should have no visible political churches upon 


earth,’ 


[7] 
CHAP V. Of the first subject of church powr or, to whom 
church powr doth first lelong.” 


Tue first subject of church powr, is eyther Supream, be tls 
or Subordinat, & Ministerial. the Supream (by way of gift Is 3 eA 


hn 20 21 23. 


from the father) is the Lord Iesus Christ.® the A/7nzsterzal, : cr 14 32. 


1 Compare Mather, Church-Government, (Answer to No. 3, of the XXXII 
Questions,) pp. 9-11. 

2 Compare Mather, AZologie, pp. 20, 21. 

3 Compare /é7d., 32; and Mather, Church-Government, (Answer to Quest. 4,) 
Pp. 12-20. 

4 Jbtd. (Answer to Quest. 12,) pp. 38, 39. 5 Read delong. 

® Compare Cotton, Keyes, pp. 29-31. 


210 


itusix 5. 
x Cor,5 12. 


Rom 12 4 8. 
Acts 12 3 

4 Cross 

1 Cor 12 29 30. 


Acts 14 23 


Rom to 17 
er Qur5. 

1 Cor, 1228; 
Ephe 4 11 
Psal 68 18. 
Eph 4, 8 11 


Eph 4 12 13. 


1 Cor 12 28 
Eph 4 II Gar 


THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


is either extraordinary; as the Apostles, Prophets, & Evan- 
gilists ;" or Ordinary; as every particular Congregational 
Grr. 

2 Ordinary church powr, is either the power of office, 
that is such as is proper to the eldership:* or, power of 
priviledge, such as belongs unto the brotherhood.* the 
latter is in the brethren formally, & immediately from 

* Christ, that is, so as it may according to order be acted 
or exercised immediately by themselves:* the former, is 
not in them formally or immediately, and therfore cannot 
be acted or exercised immediately by them, but is said to 
be in them, in that they design the persons unto office, 
who only are to act, or to exercise this power. 


CHAR Vik 


Of the Officers of the Church, & especially of Pastors & 
Teachers. 


A Church being a company of people combined to- 
gether by covenant for the worship of God, it appeareth 
therby, that there may be the essence & being of a church 
without any officers, seeing there is both the form and 
matter of a church, which is implyed when it is said, the 
Apostles ordained elders in every church, 

2 Nevertheless, though officers be not absolutely 
necessary, to the simple being of churches, when they be 
called: yet ordinarily to their calling they are, and to 
their well being: and therfore the Lord Iesus out of his 
tender compassion hath appointed, and ordained officers 
which he would not have done, if they had not been use- 
full & need full for the church; yea, being Ascended into 
heaven, he received gifts for men, and gave gifts to men, 
whereof officers for the church are Justly accounted no 
small parts; they being to continue to the end of the 


Act 8 6 26 19 C world, and for the perfecting of all the Saints. 


11 28 
Rom 11 7 8. 


3. The officers were either extraordinary, or ordinary, 


1 Compare Cotton, Way of the Churches, p. to. 

2 Compare Cotton, Keves, pp. 31, 32. 

8 Jbtd., 20-23. 4 [btd., 12-19. 5 Jbzd., 33, 34- 

8 Jézd., 34-37. Compare on whole paragraph Mather, Church-Government 
(Answer to Quest. 15), pp. 47-60. 


TEXT OF THE PLATFORM 2II 


extraordinary, as Afostles, Prophets, Evangilists.’ ordinary 
as Llders & Deacons.” — 
[8] The Afostles, Prophets, & Evangelists, as they were 1 Cor 4 9. 
called extraordinarily by Christ, so their office ended with 
them selves whence it is that Paw/ directing Zzmothy how 
to carry along Church-Administrations, Giveth no direc- Meee: 1,2V8 
tion about the choice or course of Apostles, Prophets, or Tit it. 
Livangelists, but only of Elders & Deacons. & when Paul: pets 123 
was to take his last leave of the church of Zphesus, he 
committed the care of feeding the church to no other, but 
unto the Elders of that church. The like charge dothy,Tims2 
Peter commit to the Elders. As 0 y ay 
4 Of Elders (who are also in Scripture called Bzshops) 
Some attend chiefly to the ministry of the word, As the Pas- 
tors & Teachers Others, attend especially unto Rule, who coe i 
are therfore called Ruling Elders.’ 1 Cor 12 8 
5 The office of Pastor & Teacher, appears to be dis- 
tinct. The Pastors special work is, to attend to exhortation : 
& therein to Administer a word of Wisdom: the Teacher 
is to attend to Doctrine, & therein to Administer a word 
of Knowledg :* & either of them to administer the Seales of 4;'"4 ** 
that Covenant, unto the dispensation wherof the® are alike 
called: as also to execute the Censures, being but a kind 
of application of the word, the preaching of which, to- 
gether with the application therof they are alike charged ceaes o 
withall.° 
6 And for as much as both Pastors & Teachers are 
given by Christ for the perfecting of the Saints, & edify- 
ing of his body, which Saints, & body of Christ is his 
church; Therfore wee account Pastors @ Teachers to be 
both of them church-officers; & not the Pastor for the 15am 101 v 19 
church: & the Zeacher only for the Schools, Though this? king 2 3 v 15 
wee gladly acknowledg, that Schooles are both lawfull, 
profitable, & necessary for the trayning up of such in good 
Litrature, or learning, as may afterwards be called forth 
unto office of Pastor or Teacher in the church. 





1 Compare Cotton, Way of the Churches, p. 10. 

2 [bid. 3 Jb¢d., pp. 10, 14. 

4 [é¢d., 11-13; and Mather, Church-Government (Answer to Quest. 22), pp. 
74-76. 

5 Read they, see errata. 6 Compare Mather, /ézd., 74, 75. 


212 


Rom 12 7 8 g. 
rt Lim 5. 17. 
1 Cor 12 28. 


Heb 13 17 
ry Lamyser7, 


x Tim 5, 17- 


2 Chro. 23 19. 
Rev. 21 12. 
telat. A 
Matt 18 17. 

2 Cor27, 8 
Acts 2. 6 


Acts 21. 18 22, 23. 


Acts 6, 2, 3 ¢ 13, 
V 15 

2 Cor 8, 10 

Heb 13. 7, 17 

2 Thes2. 1011, 12 


THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


CHAP VII. Of Ruling Elders & Deacons. 


THe Ruling Elders‘ office is distinct from the office 
of Pastor & Teacher. The Ruling Elders are not so called 
to exclude the Pastors & Teachers from Ruling, but be- 
cause Ruling & Governing is common to these with the 
other ; wheras attending to teach and preach the word 
is peculiar unto the former. 

2 The Ruling Elders work is to joyn with the Pas- 
tor & Teacher in those acts of spiritual Awe [9] which 
are distinct from the ministry of the word & Sacraments 
committed to them. of which sort, these be, as follow- 
eth.? I to open & shutt the dores of Gods house, by the 
Admission of members approved by the church: by Ordina- 
tion of officers chosen by the church: & by excommunt- 
cation of notorious & obstinate offenders renounced by 
the church: & by restoring of poenitents, forgivé by the 
church. II To call the church together when there is 
occasion, & seasonably to dismiss them agayn. III To 
prepare matters in private, that in publick they may be 
carried an end with less trouble, & more speedy dispatch. 
IV To moderate the carriage of all matters in the church 
assembled. as, to profound matters to the church, to 
Order the season of speech & silence; & to pronounce sen- 
tence according to the minde of Christ, with the con- 
sent of the church. V To be Guides & Leaders to the 
church, in all matters what-soever, pertaining to church 
administrations & actions. VI To see that none in the 
church live inordinately out of rank & place; without a 





1 Of all church offices in early New England practice none were so much the 
subjects of discussion as the ruling eldership. Of no office was the theoretic necessity 
more stoutly maintained, and yet none was so speedily abandoned in practice. A mo- 
ment’s examination of the catalogue of duties here enumerated will show in large 
measure the reason of this neglect of the office. The functions are such as would 
tend to ill-feeling and they are not counter-balanced by any ordinary share in the 
more pleasing duties of preaching the word. In the Barrowist Congregationalism of 
the day, the ruling elder trenched on matters which Modern Congregationalism has 
left some to the brethren, others to the minister. He occupied a position between 
the minister and the brethren sure to be full of embarrassment and of no real use. 
See 1. N: Tarbox, Ruling Elders in the Early N. E. Chs., Cong. Quarterly, XIV: 
401-416 (July, 1872). 

The divine institution and antiquity of the ruling eldership is argued at length 
by Cotton, Way of the Churches, pp. 13-33. 

2 The duties here enumerated as belonging to the ruling elders are given by 
Cotton, /ézd., 36, 37, in language so similar that the passage must have been under 
Mather’s eye as he wrote this chapter, unless Cotton himself wrote it. Mather’s orig- 
inal draft was much fuller, 


TEXT Obetnk PLATRORM 213 


calling, or Idlely in their calling. VII To prevent & heal Acts 20, 28 v 32. 
such offences in life, or. in doctrin; as might corrupt the 

church. IIX To feed the flock of God with a word ‘of 5,108 5:7 
admonition. IX And as they shall be sent for, to wéstt, & Acts20. 2° 

to pray over their sick brethren. X & at other times as 
opportunity shall serve therunto. 

3 The office of a Deacon is Instituted in the church Acts 6. 3. v6 
by the Lord Jesus. somtime they are called Helps.’ I 1 tim 3.8 

1 Cor 12, 28 

The Scripture telleth us, how they should be quali- 1 Tim 38,9. 
fied: Grave, not double tongued, not given to much to wine, not 
given to filthy lucre. they must first be proved & then use 
the office of a Deacon, being found Blameless. 

The office and work of the Deacons’ is to receive the Acts 4, 35, c6. 2, 
offrings of the church, gifts given to the church, & to ‘eG 
keep the treasury of the church: & therewith to serve 
the Zadles which the church is to provide for: as the 
Lords Table, the table of the mznzsters, & of such as are Rom rz. 8 
in zecessitie, to whom they are to distribute in simplicity. 

4 The office therefore being limited unto the care: Cor717, 
of the temporall good things of the church, it extends 
not unto the attendance upon, & administration of the 
spirituall things thereof, as the word, and Sacraments, or 
the like. 

5 The ordinance of the Apostle, & practice of the: Cor 16,1, 2, 3 
church, commends the Zords day as a fit time for the 
contributions of the Saints. 

[10] 6 The Instituting of all these officers in the Church, : hon e 
is the work of God himselfe; of the Lord Jesus Christ ; Acts 20, 28 
of the holy Ghost. & there rate such officers as he hath 
not appointed, are altogether unlawfull either to be placed 
in the church, or to be retained therin, & are to be looked 
at as humane creatures, meer Inventions & appointments 
of man, to the great dishonour of Christ Jesus, the Lord 
of his house, the King of his church, whether /ofes, 
Patriarkes, Cardinals, Arch-bishops, Lordbishops, Arch-dea- 
cons, Officials, Commtssartes, & the like. These & the rest 
of that Hierarchy & Retinue, not being plants of the Lords Matt rs, 13 
planting, shall all be certeinly be* rooted out, & cast 
forth. 


1 Compare Cotton, Way of the Churches, p. 38. 

2 The paragraphs describing the duties of deacons closely follow the description 
given by Cotton, /éz¢., which Mather had before him. 

3 Omitted in errata. 


214 


1 Limys, 9,20. 


Heb 5, 4 


Galat 1, I 
Acts 14. 23 
cap 6. 3 


1 Tim 5. 22 
cap 7, Io 
Acts 16. 2 
cap 6. 3 


Act i4yesnmecer. 
237) C10, Sst Amoe 


Gal 5, 13 


Hebrare.s27 


THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


7 The Lord hath appointed ancient widdows, (where 
they may be had) to minister in the church, in giving 
attendance to the sick, & to give succour unto them, & 
others in the like necessities.’ 


aie, ; Il xX: 
Of the Election of Church-Officers. 


No man may take the honour of a Church-Officer 
unto himself, but he that was ca//ed of God, as was Aaron.” 

2 Calling unto office is either /mmediate, by Christ 
himself : such was the call of the Apostles, & Prophets : 
this manner of calling ended with them, as hath been 
said:* or AZediate, by the church.* 

3 It is meet, that before any be ordained or chosen 
officers, they should first be Zryed & proved; because 
hands are not suddenly to be laid upon any,® & both 
Lilders & Deacons must be of honest & good report. 

4 The things in respect of which they are to be 
Tryed, are those gifts & virtues which the Scripture re- 
quireth in men, that are to be elected into such places. 
viz, that L/ders must be Jdlameless, sober, apt to teach, & 
endued with such other qualifications as are layd downe, 
1 Tim,: 3.& 2... Vit :/1, 6.to 9.5, Deacons (0 Desitneameee 
Gimpocted) Acts. 6.2.04 lulls no. bon tes 

5 Officers are to be called by such Churches, where 
unto they are to minister. of such moment is the preser- 
vation of this power, that the churches exercised it in 
the presence of the Apostles.’ 

6 Acchurch being free cannot become subject to any, 
but by a free election; [11] Yet when such a people do 
chuse any to be over them in the Lord, then do they 
becom subject, & most willingly submit to their min- 
istry in the Lord, whom they have so chosen. 


1 Compare Cotton, Way of the Churches, p. 39. 

2 Compare Mather and Tompson, Modest & Brotherly Ansvver, p. 57. 

3 [bid. 

4 Jbid., 55-58. Compare Mather, Church-Government, (Answer to Quest. 20,) 
pp. 67, 68. 

5 Compare Cotton, Way of the Churches, p. 39. See also the Modest & Broth- 
erly Ansvver, Pp. 51. 

6 Way of the Churches, p.39. Here again the writer must have had Cotton’s 
work before him. 

7 Compare Mather and Tompson, Modest & Brotherly Ansvver, pp. 55, 56. 


EXT, OR THE -PEATFORM 215 


7 And if the church have powr to chuse their offi- Rom. 16, 17 
cers & ministers, then in case of manifest unworthyness, 
& delinquency they have powr also to depose them.' For 
to open, & shut: to chuse & refuse; to constitute in 
office, & remove from office: are acts belonging unto 
the same powr. 
8 Wee judge it much conducing to the wel-being, & Cat. 8, 8,9 
communion of churches, that where it may conveniently 
be done, nerghbour-churches be advised withall, & their help 
made use of in the triall of church-officers, in order to 
their choyce.’ 
g The choyce of such Church-officers belongeth not 
to the civil-magistrates, as such, or diocesan-bishops, or 
patrones: for of these or any such like, the Scripture 
is wholly silent, as having any power therin. 


aA Lasik 


Of Ordination, & Imposition of hands. 


CHurch-officers are not only to be chosen by VN acae 
Church, but also to be ordeyned by Lmposition of hands, & 1 Tim. 5, 22 
prayer.* with which at ordination of Elders, fasting also 
is to be joyned.* 

2 This ordination wee account nothing else, but the Nese e ey 
solemn putting of a man into his place & office in the “P13, 23 
Church wher-unto he had right before by election, being 
like the installing of a magistrat in the common wealth.° 

Ordination therefore is not to go before, but pins 
follow election. The essence & substance of the outward 
calling of an ordinary officer in the Church, doth not 
consist in his ordination, but in his voluntary & free 


election by the Church, & in his accepting of that election. 





1 Compare Davenport, Answer . . . unto Nine Positions, London, 1643, 
Pp. 76, 77, (Position 7). 

2 Compare Cotton, Way of the Churches, pp. 40, 45. 

3 Compare /ézd., 40-42. 

4‘ For our calling of Deacons, we hold it not necessary to ordaine them with 
like solemnitie, of fasting and prayers, as is used in the Ordination of Elders.” Jdid., 
42. It was sufficient that they should be ordained by the hands and prayers of the 
ministers of the local church without a public invitation of neighboring churches, etc. 

5 From Mather, Church-Government, (Answer to Quest. 20,) p. 67. Compare 
the Modest & Brotherly Ansvuer, p. 47. 


216 


be lbvheotyyw 
ACtsiT3:/3 
x1 Tim 5. 22 


Numb 8. zo 


1 Tim 4 14 
PACtSIS.s3 


rT Peta sie 
Acts 20. 28 


THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


wher-upon is founded the relation between Pastor & 
flock, between such a minister, & such a people.’ 

Ordination doth not constitute an officer, nor give 
him the essentials of his office. The Apostles were 
elders, without Imposition of hands by men: Paul & 
Barnabas were officers, before that Imposition of hands. 
Acts. 73¢mee Lhelposterity of Lev; @wereme melee 
[12] Levits, before hands were laid on them by the 
Children of Israel. 

3. In such Churches where there are Elders, /mpo- 
sttion of hands in ordination is to be performed by those 
Elders.* : 

@ In such Churcheswhere there areé-=nomMiders 
Imposition of hands may be performed by some of the 
Brethren orderly chosen by the church therunto. For 
if the people may elect officers which is the greater, 
& wherin the substance of the Office consists, they may 
much more (occasion & need so requiring) impose hands 
in ordination, which is the less, & but the accomplishment 
of the other.’ 

5 Nevertheless in such Churches where there are 
no Elders, & the Church so desire, wee see not why 
Imposition of hands may not be performed by the 4/ders 
of other Churches.’ Ordinary officers laid hands upon the 
officers of many Churches: the presbytery of Ephesus 
layd hands upon Zzmothy an Evangelist. The presbytery 
at Antioch \aid hands upon Paul & Barnabas.® 

6 Church Officers, are officers to one church, even 
that particular, over which the Holy Ghost hath made 
them overseers. Insomuch as Elders are cOmanded to 
feed, not all flocks, but that flock which is cémitted to 
their faith & trust, & dependeth upon them.” Nor can 
cOstant residence at one cogregation, be necessary for 


1 Compare, Church-Government, 68; and Mather, Reply to Mr. Rutherfurd, 
London, 1647, pp. 102, 103. 

2 Compare the Reply, etc., pp. 104-106. 

3 Mather, Church-Government (Answer to Quest. 21), pp. 68, 69, 74. Compare 
Mather and Tompson, Modest & Brotherly Ansuvver, pp. 45, 49. 

4 Mather, Church-Governmnent (Answer to Quest. 21), pp. 69-74, Mather and 
Tompson, Modest & Brotherly Ansvver, pp. 45-53. 

5 [bid., 46, 48, 49, 53: Mather, Reply to Mr. Rutherfurd, p. 94. Cotton dis- 
sented, Way of the Churches, pp. 50, 51. 

8 Modest & Brotherly Ansvver, 45, 54. 

7 [bid., 48. 


TEXT OF THE PLATFORM 217 


a minister, no nor yet lawfull, if he be not a minister 
to one cdgregation only, but to the church universall: 
because he may not attend one part only of the church, Acts 20. 28 
wherto he is a minister, but he is called to attend unto 
all the flock. 

7. Hee that is clearly loosed from his office-relation 
unto that church wherof he was a minister, canot be 
looked at as an officer, nor perform any act of Office in 
any other church, vnless he be again orderly called unto 
Office : which when it shall be, wee know nothing to hinder, 
but Lmposition of hands also in his Ordination ought to 
be used towards him again.’ For so Paul the Apostle 
received /mposition of hands twice at least, from Ananias. 
PROLSS.Q. 17 SoA CESeIs, 43. 


CHAP xX: 


Of the powr of the Church, & its Presbytery. 


Supream & Lordly jower over all the Churches Peal 2. 6 
upon earth, doth only bélong unto Jesus Christ, who is Ieay 9.6" 
King of the church, & the head therof. He hath the 
Governmét upon his shoulders, & hath all powr given 
to him, both in heaven & earth.’ 

[13] 2 A Copany of professed believers Ecclescastically 
Confederat, as they are a church before they have officers, 

& without them; so even in that estate, subordinate Church- 

power under Christ deligated to them by him, doth belong Acts r. 23 
to them, in such a maner as is before expressed. C. 5. Sic: 634 
2. & as flowing from the very nature & Esséce of a church: oa Bis 
It being naturall to all bodyes, & so unto a church body, 

to be furnished with sufficient powr, for its own preser- 

vatio & subsistace. 

3. This Government of the church, is a mixt Gover- 
ment (& so hath been acknowledged long before the 
term of Indepédency was heard of:) In respect of C#risz, 
the head & King of the church, & the Soveraigne power 
residing in #im, & exercised by him, it is a AZonarchy: In Boe 37, 


respect of the body, or Brotherhood of the church, & powr 
from Christ graunted unto them, it resembles a Democracy, x Tim s. 17 





1 See Mather, Church-Government (Answer to Quest. 21), pp. 69, 70. Compare 
Davenport, Axswer . . . unto Nine Positions, pp. 76, 77 (Position 7). 
2 Compare Cotton, Keyes, 29, 30. 
15 


218 


Gal x. 4. 
Rev 5. 8,9 | 
Matt 28. 20 


Eph 4. 8. 12 © 


Jam 4. 12 
Isay 33. 22 


1 Tim 3, 15 
2 Cor 10. 4, 5 
Isay 32. 2 
Luke 1. 51 


Acts 6. 3, 5 
€ 14. 23 
© Qg. 26 


Matt 18. 15, 
26, 17 


Tit 3. ro 
Coll 4. 17 
Mat 18. 17 
2 Cor 2. 7,8 


Collo 4. 17 
Rom 16. 17 


THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


In respect of the Presbyetry & powr comitted to them, 
it is an Arétstocracy.' d 

4 The Soveraigne pown which is peculiar unto Christ, 
is exercised, I In calling the church out of the world 
unto holy fellowship with himselfe. II In instituting 
the ordinaces of his worship, & appointing his ministers 
& officers for the dispensing of them.” III In giving 
lawes for the ordering of all our wayes, & the wayes of 
his house:* IV In giving powr & life to all his Insti- 
tutions, & to his people by them. V_ In protectig & 
delivering his church against & from all the enemies of 
their peace. 

5 The power graunted by Christ unto the body of 
the church & Lrotherhood, is a prerogative or priviledge 
which the church doth exercise: I In Choosing their 
own Officers, whether Elders, or Deacons.* II In admission 
of their own members & therfore, there is great reason 
they should have power to Aemove any from their fellow- 
ship again. Hence in case of offence any one brother 
hath powr to convince & Admonish an offending brother: 
& in case of not hearing him, to take one or two more to 
sett on the Admonitio, & in case of not hearing them, to 
proceed to tell the church: & as his offence may require 
the whole church hath powr to proceed to the publick 
Censure of him, whether by Admonition, or Excomunica- 
tion: & upon his repentance to restore him againe unto 
his former cOmunion.’ 

6 In case an Elder offend incorrigibly, the matter 
so requiring, as the church had powr to call him to office, 
so they have powr according to order (the counsell of 
other churches where it may be had, directing therto® 
to remove him fro his Office:’ & beig now but a méber, 


1 Quoted in substance by Mather, Church-Government (Answer to Quest. 15), 
p. 51 from Cartwright. 

2 Compare Cotton, Keyes, 30. 

4 Compare Jé7d., p. 12. 

5 Compare /ézd., pp. 13-15; and Way of the Churches, 89-92. 6 Insert ). 

7 This subject is one on which Mather was more positive than Cotton. The 
.satter in the Keyes (1644), pp. 16, 17, held that when all the ministry of a church were 
culpable the church could not excommunicate them, having no officers for the purpose; 
but only withdraw from them. But by the time of the publication of the Way of the 
Churches (1645), p. ror, Cotton had so far modified his views as to take substantially 
the position here given, and asserted the right of the church to discipline all its minis- 
try. Davenport, A zswer unto Nine Positions, p. 77, agreed with the Plat- 
form. Cotton, Aeyes, p. 43, suggested that in case all the elders of a church offended 
the ‘‘ readiest course is, to bring the matter then to a Synod,”’ i. e. council. 


3 Compare /é7d. 


HEXT OFSEHE PLATFORM 219 


in case he add cédtumacy to his sin, [14] the Church that Mate. 18, 17 
had powr to receive him into their fellowship, hath also 
the same powr to cast him out, that they have concerning 
any other member. 

7 Church-government, or Rule, is placed by Christ :,1im-s. = pl 
in the officers of the church, who are therefore called t Thes. 2 
Rulers, while they rule with God: yet in case of mal-ad- 
ministration, they are subject to the power of the church, 
according as hath been said before. the Holy Ghost Rom. 1.8 
frequently, yea alwayes, whefe it mentioneth Church- ¢ Gor" 12, 28 20, 
Rule, & church-government, ascribeth it to Elders: wheras aan og 
the work & duty of the people is expressed in the phrase 
of obeying their Elders; and submiting themselves unto 
them in the Lord: so as it is manifest, that an organick 
or compleat church is a body politick, consisting of some 
that are Governors, & some that are governed, in the 
Lord.’ 

8 The powr which Christ has committed to the Acts. 20. 28 


Elders, is to feed & rule the church of God,’ & accords mie Ae 


ingly to call the church together upon any weighty Acts eo fe 
occasion,® when the members so called, without just cause, 

may not refuse to come: nor when they are come, depart Hosh, 4. 4. 
before they are dismissed: nor speak in the church, before 

they have leave from the elders: nor continue so doing, 

when they require silence,* nor may they oppose nor con- 

tradict the judgment or sentence of the Elders, without 
sufficient & weighty cause, becaus such practices are 
manifestly contrary unto order, & government, & in-lets 

of disturbance, & tend to confusion.’ 

g It belongs also unto the Elders to examine any ete ae 
officers, or members, before they be received of the Acts. 21. 18 22 
church:*® to receive the accusations brought to the 1 Cor. 5. 4, 5 
Church, & to prepare them for the churches hearing.’ 

In handling of offences & other matters before the 


Church they have powr to declare & publish the Counsell Num. 6.23, to 26. 


& will of God touching the same, & to pronounce 
sentence with the consent of the Church:* Lastly they 





1 Compare Mather, Church-Government (Answer to Quest. 15), pp. 47-60; Cot- 
ton, Keyes, pp. 20-23; Way of the Churches, pp. 96-102. 
2 Cotton, Keyes, p. 20. 
3 Mather, Church-Government, 57; Cotton, Keyes, 21; Way of the Churches, 101. 
4 Mather, /ézd. Cotton, /é7d., Loid. 5 Compare Mather, /ézd., 58. 
6 Cotton, Keyes, 21. 7 Ibid., 22. 8 Jbid. 


220 


Acts, 14. 15 ve. 


23,4G 10s 
x Corsini 
2 Cor. 2. 6, 7 


Hebr. 13. 17 


zor, 6. Oh, 


S61 CTO, mG 
t Tim. 5. 18 


Gala. 6: 6. 


1 Cornomo 
vers. 14. 
x limysa0s 


THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


have powr, when they dismiss the people, to bless them 
in the name of the Lord.’ 

10 6‘[This powr of Government in the Elders, doth 
not any wise prejudice the powr of priviledg in the 
brotherhood; as neither the powr of priviledg in the 
brethren, doth prejudice the power of government in the 
Elders; but they may sweetly agree together. as wee 
may see in the example of the Apostles furnished with 
the greatest church-powr, who took in the concurrence 
& consent of the brethren in church-administrations. 
[15] Also that Scripture, 2 Cor 2.9. & chap 10: 6 doe 
declare, that what the churches were to act & doe in 
these matters, they were to doe in a way of obedience, & 
that not only to the direction of the Apostles, but also of 
their ordinary Elders.’ 

11 From the premisses, namely, that the ordinary 
powr of Government belonging only to the elders, powr of 
priviledg remaineth with the brotherhood, (as powr of judg- 
ment in matters of censure, & powr of liberty, in matters 
of liberty:) It followeth, that in an organick Church, & 
right administration; all church acts, proceed after the 
manner of a mixt administration, so as no church act can 
be consummated, or perfected without the consent of both. 


SETA Eie Oe 
Of the maintenance of Church Officers.’ 


Tue Apostle concludes, that necessary & sufficient 
maintenance is due unto the ministers of the word: from 
the law of nature & nations, from the law of Moses, the 
equity thereof, as also the rule of common reason. more- 
over the scripture doth not only call Elders labourers, & 
workmen, but also speaking of them doth say, that 
the labourer is worthy of his Azre: & requires that he 
which is taught in the word, should communicate to him, 
in all good things; & mentions it as an ordinance of the 


Lord, that they which preach the Gospel, should live of 


1 Mather, Church-Government, 58; Cotton, Keyes, 22; Way of the Churches, 
100. 

2 Compare Mather, Church-Government, pp. 58-60. 

S020. 576 

4 Compare the brief paragraph, Mather, Church-Government, (Answer to Quest. 
26,) pp. 76, 77. 


TEXT OF THE -PLATFORM 


the Gospel; & forbideth the muzling of the mouth of the ox, 
that treadeth out the corn. 

2 The Scriptures alledged requiring this mainten- 
ance as a bounden duty, & due debt, & not as a matter of 
almes, & free gift therefore people are not at liberty to doe 
or not to doe, what & when they pleas in this matter, no 
more then in any other commanded duty, & ordinance of 


things to them, that labour amongst them in the word & 
doctrine, as well as they ought to pay any other work men 
their wages, or to discharge & satisfie their other debts, or 
to submit themselves to observe any other ordinance of the 
Lord. 


the Lord: but ought of duty, to minister of their carna// Rom 


15 27 
Or. 9. 


14 


3 The Apostle, Gal: 6, 6. injoyning that he which is Gala. 6. 6 


taught communicate to him that teacheth zz all good things: 
doth not leave it arbitrary, what or how much a man shall 


221 


give, or in what proportion, [16] but even the later, as well t Gr 16 2 


as the former, is prescribed & appointed by the Lord. 


4 Not only members of Churches, but al that are Galat. 6. 6. 


taught in the word, are to contribute unto him that teacheth, 
in all good things. In case that Congregations are defec- 


tive in their contributions, the Deacons are to call upon Act. 6. 3,4 


themeto doe: their duty: if their call sufficeth) not; the 
church by her powr is to require it of their members, & 
where church-powr through the corruption of men, doth 
not, or canot attaine the end, the Magistrate is to see’ 
ministry be duely provided for, as appeares from the com- 


mended example of Nehemiah. The Magistrates are nurs- Neh. 13. 1 


ing fathers, & nursing mothers, & stand charged with the 


custody of both Tables; because it is better to prevent a Isay. 49. 23 


scandal, that it may not come & easier also, then to re- 


move it when it is given. Its most suitable to Rule, that 2 Cor. 8 13 1% 


by the churches care, each man should know his proportion 
according to rule, what he should doe, before he doe it, 
that so his iudgment & heart may be satisfied in what he 
doeth, & just offence prevented in what is done. 


CHAP: XII. 
Of Admission of members into the Church. 


THe doors of the Churches of Christ upon earth, doe? ea i 


18s eRe 


‘ : cB 
not by Gods appointment stand so wide open, that all sorts 25. « 22, 12 





1 Insert that the. 


222 


Acts. 8. 37 


Rev, 2. 2 
Acts g. 26 


Rev. 21. 12 
2 ‘Chr. 23. 19 


Acts 2. 38 to 
42, C8. 37 


Matt 3. 6. 
Acts 19. 8. 


Rom 14. 1 


Matt, 12. 20 
Isay 40. 11. 


THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


of people good or bad, may freely enter therein at their 
pleasure; but such as are admitted therto, as members 
ought to be examined & tryed first; whether they be fit & 
meet to be received into church-society, or not.’ The 
Evnuch of A‘thiopia, before his admission was examined 
by Philip,? whether he did beleive on Jesus Christ with alk 
his heart*®* the Angel of the church at Ephesus is com- 
mended, for trying such as said they were Apostles & were 
not. There is like reason for trying of them that profess 
themselves to be beleivers. 

The officers are charged with the keeping of the doors 
of the Church, & therfore are in a special maner to make 
tryall of the fitnes of such who enter. Twelve Angels are 
set at the gates of the Temple, lest such as were Cere- 
monially wnxclean should enter therinto. 

2 The things which are requisite to be found in all 
church members, are, Repentance from sin, & faith in Jesus 
Christ. [17] And therfore these are the things wherof men 
are to be examined, at their admission into the church & 
which then they must profess & hold forth in such sort, as 
may Satisfie rationall charity that the things are there in- 
deed. Iohn Baptist admitted men to Baptism, confessing 
& bewayling their sinns: & of other it is said, that they 
came, & confessed, & shewed their deeds.’ 

3. The weakest measure of faith is to be accepted in 
those that desire to be admitted into the church: becaus 
weak christians if szzcere, have the substance of that faith, 
repentance & holiness which is required in church mem- 
bers: & such have most zeed of the ordinances for their 
confirmation & growth in grace.®° The Lord Jesus would 
not quench the smoaking flax, nor breake the bruised reed, 
but gather the tender lambes in his arms, & carry them 
gently in his bosome. Such charity & tenderness is to be 
used, as the weakest christian if sincere, may not be ex- 
cluded, nor discouraged. Severity of examination is to be 
avoyded. 


1 Compare Mather, Church-Government, (Answer to Quest. 8,) pp. 23, 24; and 
Cotton, Way of the Churches, pp. 54-58. 

2 See errata. 8 Cotton, Way of the Churches, pp. 5, 58. 

5 Mather, Church-Government, pp. 23, 24. 
Churches, pp. 54, 55) 57) 58: 

6 Cotton, /dzd., p. 58. 


4 See errata. 
Compare also Cotton, Way of the 


TEXT OF THE PLATFORM 


4 In case any through excessive fear, or other in- 
firmity, de wnable to make their personal re/ution of their 
spirituall estate in publick, it is sufficient that the Elders 
having received private satisfaction, make re/at/on therof 
in publick before the church, they testifying their assents 
therunto ; this being the way that tendeth most to edifi- 
cation. But wheras persons are of better adzlityes, there 


it is most expedient, that they make their relations, & con- psal 66. 16 


Jesstons personally with their own mouth, as David profes- 
seth of himselfe. 

5 <A personall & publick confession, & declaring of 
Gods manner of working upon the soul, is both lawfull, 
expedient, & usefull, in sundry respects, & upon sundry 
grounds. Those three thousands. Acts. 2. 37. 41. Be- 
fore they were admitted by the Apostles, did manifest 
that they were pricked in their hearts at Peters sermon, 
together with earnest desire to be delivered from their 
sinns, which now wounded their consciences, & their 
ready receiving of the word of promise and exhortation. 
Wee are to be ready to render a reason of the hope that is 
in us, to every one that asketh us: therfore wee must be 
able and ready upon any occasion to declare & shew 
our repentance for sinn, faith unfagned » & effectuall calling, 


because these are the reason of a well grounded hope. [I Hebr. 1.x 


have not hidden thy righteousness from the great congre- 
gation. Psal: 4o. Io. 

[z18| 6 This profession of faith & repentance, as 
it must be made by such at their admission, that were 
never in Church-society before: so nothing hindreth but 
the same way also be performed by such as have formerly 
been members of some other church, & the church to 
which they now joyn themselves as members, may law- 
fully require the same.” Those three thousand. Acts. 2. 
which made their confession, were mébers of the church 
of the Jews before, so were they that were baptised by 


a het 3.55 


Ephe r. 18 


223 


John. Churches may err in their admission: & persons Matt. 3. 5, 6 


regularly admitted, may fall into offence. Otherwise, if 
Churches might obtrude their members, or if church- 
members might obtrude themselves upon other churches, 
without due tryall, the matter so requring, both the lib- 





1 Read unfeigned. 
2 Compare Mather, Church-Government, p. 30. 


Gallat. 2. 4 


Tinta sa 24 


224 


Cant. 8. 8 


Matt. 7. 6 
x Cor. 11. 27 


THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


erty of churches would hereby be infringed, in that they 
might not, examine those, concering whose fitness for 
communion, they were unsatisfied: & besides the infring- 
ing of their liberty, the churches themselves would tavoid- 
ably be corrupted, & the ordinances defiled, whilst they 
might not refuse, but must receive the unworthy : which 
is contrary unto the Scripture, teaching that all churches 
are sisters, and therfore equall. 

7 The like tryall is to be required from such mem- 
bers of the church, as were born in the same, or received 
their membership, & were baptized in their infancy, or 
minority, by vertue of the covenat of their parents, when 
being grown up nnto’ years of discretion, they shall desire 
to. be made partakers of the Lords supper: unto which, 
because holy things must not be given unto the unworthy, 
therfore it is requisit, that these as well as others, should 
come to their tryall & examiation, & manifest their faith 
& repentance by an open profession therof, before they 
are received to the Lords supper, & otherwise not to be 
be? admitted there unto.’ 

Yet these church-members that were so born, or re- 
ceived in their childhood, before they are capable of 
being made partakers of full c6munion, have many priv- 
iledges which others (not church-mébers) have not: they 
are in covenant with God; have the seale therof upon 
them, vzz. Baptisme ; & so if not regenerated, yet are ina 
more hopefull way of attayning regenerating grace, & all 
the spiritual blessings both of the covenat & seal; they 
are also under Church-watch, & consequently subject, to 
the reprehensions, admonitions, & censures therof, for 
their healing and amendment, as need shall require. 


[ 19 | oP se OLLI, 


Of Church-members their removall from one Church to 
another, & of letters of recomendation & dismission. 


Cuurch-members may not remove or depart from the 
Church, & so one from another as they please, nor with- 


1 Read zz7o. 2 Omitted in errata. 

3 Compare Cotton, Way of the Churches, p.5; Mather, Church-Governmeent, 
pp. 20-22. Mather’s first draft, now in the MSS. collections of the American Anti- 
quarian Society at Worcester, read: ‘‘Such as are borne in y@ ch: as members, though 
yet they be not found fitt for ye Lords Supper, yet if they be not culpable of such scan- 
dalls in Conversation as do justly deserve ch: Censures, it seemeth to vs, w® they are 
marryed & have children, those their children may be recd to Baptisme.’’ p. 63. 


TEXT. OF THE PLATFORM 225 


out just & weighty cause but ought to live & dwell to- Hebr. x10 25 
gether : for as much as they are cOmanded, not to forsake 
the assembling of themselves together. Such departure 
tends to the dissolution & ruine of the body: as the 
pulling of stones, & peeces of timber from the building, & 
of members from the naturall body, tend to the destruc- 
tion of the whole.’ 

2 It is therfore the duty of Church-members, in 
such times & places when counsell may be had, to consult 
with the Church wherof they are members, about their Prov. 1. 16 
removall, that accordingly they have their approbation, 
may be incouraged, or otherwise desist. They who are 
joyned with consent, should not depart without consent, 
except forced therunto.? . 

3 If a members departure be manifestly unsafe, and 
sinfull, the church may not consent therunto: for in so Rom x4. 23. 
doing, they should not act in faith: & should pertake Acts 21, 14. 
with him in his sinn. If the case be doubtfull & the 
person not to be perswaded, it seemeth best to leave the 
matter unto God, & not forcibly to detayn him.® 

4 Just reasos for a mébers removal of himselfe from 
the church are, I If a man canot continue without par- 
takig in semm. II Incase of personall persecution, sO Paul pee uaa Bie 
departed from the disciples at Damascus. Also, in Case 29. 30 chap 8. 1 
of generall persecution, when all are scattered. III In 
case of real, & not only’ pretended, want of competent Nehe. 13. 20 
subsistence, a door being opened for a better supply in 
another place, together with the meanes of spirituall edifi- 
cation. In these, or like cases,a member may lawfully 
remove, & the church cannot lawfully detayne him. 

5 To seperate from a Church, eyther out of contempt 
of their holy fellowship, or out of covetousness, or for greater 2 Tim 4. to 
inlargements with just greife to the church; or out of 
schisme, or want of love; & out of a spirit of contention in Rom +6. 17 
respect of some unkindness, or some evill only conceived, Jude « 19. 
[20] or indeed, in the Church which might & should be Esh [Eph] 4.2.3 
tolerated & healed with a spirit of meekness, & of which Cou 3, 23 

: i As Gala6.1, 2 

evill the church is not yet cdvinced, (though perhaps 
himselfe bee) nor admonished:* for these or the like rea- 





1 Compare Davenport, Answer .... unto Nine Positions, pp. 72-76. 
2 Tbzd., 74. 3 [bzd. 
4 Compare Cotton, Way of the Churches, 105. 


226 


Isay 56. 8 
Acts 9. 26 


a Cor, T4933 


Acts, 18, 27 


Rom 16, 1, 2 


2 COrrarnx 


Acts. 18, 27 
Coll 4. 10 
Rom. 16. 1 


2\COW, Nas 


THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


sons to withdraw from publick cOmunion, in word, or seales, 
or censures, is unlawfull & sinfull. 

6 Such members as have orderly removed their hab- 
itation ought to joyn themselves unto the church in order, 
where they doe inhabit if it may bee: otherwise, they can 
neyther perform the dutyes, nor receive the priviledges of 
members; such an example tolerated in some, is apt to 
corrupt others; which if many should follow, would 
threaten the dissolution & confusion of churches, contrary 
to the Scripture.’ 

7 Order requires, that a member thus removing, have 
letters testimonial; & of dismission from the church wherof 
he yet is, unto the church wherunto he desireth to be 
joyned, lest the church should be deluded; that the church 
may receive him in faith; & not be corrupted by receiving 
deceivers, & false brethren. Untill the person dismissed 
be received into another church, he ceaseth not by his letters 
of dismission to be a member of the church wherof he 
was.” The church canot make a member no member but 
by excOmunication.* 

8 Ifa member be called to remove only for a time, 
where a Church is, letters of Recommendation are requisite, 
& sufficient for cOmunion with that church, in the ordi- 
nances, & in their watch: as Phoebe, a servat of the 
church at Cenchrea, had letters writté for her to the 
church of Rome, that shee might be received, as becOmeth 
saints.’ 

g Such letters of Recommendation & dismission were 
written for Apollos: For Marcus to the Colosias; for 
Phoebe to the Romaes; for siidry others to other churches. 
& the Apostle telleth us, that some persons, not sufficient- 
ly known otherwise, have special need of such letters, 
though he for his part had no need therof.® The use of 
them is to be a benefit, & help to the party, for whom they 
are writté; and for the furthering of his receiving amongst 
the Saints in the place wherto he goeth; & the due satis- 
faction of them in their receiving of him. 





1 Compare Mather, Church-Government, pp. 37-39. 

2 Compare Cotton, Keyes, pp. 17, 18; Way of the Churches, pp. 76, 103, 104. 
3 [bid., Way, p. 104. 

4 Ibid., Keyes, p. 17; Way, Pp. 103. 

5S b1d 5 Keyes, Daige 


TEXT OF THE PLATFORM 227 


CHABEXIV. 
Of excommunication & other Censures. 


THe Censures of the church, are appointed by Christ, Denes. ty 
for the preventing, removing, [21] & healing of offences pide 29 [a3 7) 
in the Church: for the reclayming & gayning of offending Cee. oh 
brethren: for the deterring others from the like offéces: 
for purging out the leaven which may infect the whole 
lump: for vindicating the honour of Christ, & of his church, Rev: 2 14. 15. 
& the holy profession of the gospel: & for preventing the 
wrath of God, that may justly fall upon the church, if they 
should suffer his covenant, and the seales therof, to be 
prophaned by notorious & obstinate offenders. 

2 If an offence be przvaze (one brother offending an- Mat. s. 23, 24 

r f Lake 17.3.4 

other) the offender is to goe, & acknowledg his repentace 
for it unto his offended brother, who is then to forgive 
him, but if the offender neglect or refuse to doe it, the 
brother offéded is to goe, & covince & admonish him of it, 
between themselves privatly: if therupon the offender Matt. 18. 15 
bee brought to repent of his offéce, the admonisher hath 
won his brother, but if the offender heare not his brother, 
the brother offended is to take with him one or two more, 
that in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word VY °° 
may be established, (whether the word of admonition if 
the offender receive it, or the word of complaint, if he re- 
fuse it:) for if he refuse it, the offéded brother is by the V x. 
mouth of the Elders to tell the church. & if he heare the 
church, & declare the same by penitét confession, he is re- 
covered & gayned; & if the church discern him to be 
willing to hear, yet not fully coviuced’ of his offence, as in Tit. 3. ro 
case of heresy; They are to dispéce to him a publick 
admonition; which declaring the offéder to ly under the 
publick offence of the church, doth therby with-hold or 
suspend him from the holy fellowship of the Lords Supper, Matt. 18. 17 
till his offence be removed by penitent cédfession. If he 
still continue obstinate, they are to cast him out by ex- 
cOmunication,? 

3: Butif the offéce be more pudlick at first, & of a 
more heinous & criminall nature, to wit, such as are CON teen «5s 4y 





1 See errata. 
2 See Cotton, Way of the Churches, pp. 89-92; a passage which the writer had under 
his eye. 


N 


228 


Galat. 6. 1. 


Matt 18. 34. 35 

C\GuetA. tS 
Ezek. 13. ro 
USA sev! 


Mat. 18. 17. 
TeGOLs, Soot 
2. he. 3.6; 14 


t Cor 14. 24. 25 


eo nessa. tA 


2 Cor 2. 7, 8 


THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


déned by the light of nature; then the church without such 
graduall proceeding, is to cast out the offender, from their 
holy comunion, for the further mortifying of his sinn & the 
healing of his soule, in the day of the Lord Jesus.’ 

4 In dealing with an offéder, great care is to be také, 
that wee be neither overstrict or rigorous, nor too indul- 
gent or remiss; our proceeding herein ought to be with a 
spirit of meekness, considering our selves, lest wee also be 
tépted; & that the best of us have need of much forgiv- 
ness from the Lord. Yet the winig & healig of the off€ders 
soul, being the end of these édeavours, wee must not daub 
with atempered morter, nor heal the wounds of our breth- 
ren sleightly. on some have compassi6, others save with 
fear. 

[22] 5 While the offender remayns excoOmunicate, 
the Church is to refrayn from all member-like communion 
with him in spirituall things, & also from all familiar cém- 
unio with him in civil things, farther then the necessity of 
natural, or domestical, or civil relatids doe require: & 
are therfore to forbear to eat & drike with him, that he 
may be ashamd. 

6 Excomunication being a spirituall punishment, it 
doth not prejudice the excdmunicate in, nor deprive him of 
his czvel rights, & therfore toucheth not princes, or other 
magistrates, in point of their civil dignity or authority. 
And, the excomunicate being but as a publican & a hea- 
then, heathens being lawfully permitted to come to hear 
the word in church assemblyes; wee acknowledg therfore 
the like liberty of hearing the word, may be permitted to 
persons excommunicate, that is permitted unto heathen. 
And because wee are not without hope of his recovery, 
wee are not to account him as an enemy but to admonish 
him as a brother.? 

7 If the Lord sanctifie the censure to the offender, 
so as by the grace of Christ, he doth testifie his repent- 
ance, with humble cofession of his sinn, & judging of him- 
selfe, giving glory unto God; the Church is then to forgive 
him, & to comfort him, & to restore him to the wonted 
brotherly communion, which formerly he injoyed with 
them.’ 


1 Jb7d., pp. 92, 93. 2 Compare /é7d., p. 93. 
3 Compare /ézd., pp. 93, 94. 4 Tbid., p. 94. 


TEXT OF THE PLATFORM 229 


8 The suffring of prophane or scandalous livers to 
continue in fellowship, & partake in the sacraments, is 
doubtless a great sinn in those that have power in their eevee 45: 
hands to redress it; & doeit not. Nevertheless, inasmuch 
as Christ & his Apostles in their times, & the Prophets py eee 
other godly in theirs, did lawfully partake of the Lords 
commanded ordinances in the Jewish church, & neyther 
taught nor practiced seperation from the same, though un- 
worthy ones were permitted therin; & inasmuch ag;the 
faithfull in the church of Corinth, wherin were many un- 
worthy persons, & practises, are never commanded,;g¢ a pe) 15. 
absent themselves from the Sacraméts, because of -the 
same: therfore the godly in like cases, are not presently to 
seperate. 

9g As seperation from such a Church wherin prophae 
& scandalous livers are tolerated, is not presently neces- 
sary: so for the members therof, otherwise worthy, here- 
upon to adstain from communicating with such a church, 2,Chron. ee 18 
in the participation of the Sacraments, is unlawfull. For 
as it were unreasonable for an inocent person to be pun- 
ished, for the faults of other, wherin he hath no hand, & 
wherunto he gave no consent: soe is it more unreasonable, 
that a godly [23] man should neglect duty, & punish him- 
selfe in not céming for his portion in the blessing of the 
seales, as he ought, because others are suffered to come, 
that ought not. especially, considering that himselfe doth 
neyther consent to their sinn, nor to their approching to 
the ordinance in their sinn, nor to the neglect of others 
who should put them away, & doe not: but on the con- Ezek 9. 4 
trary doth heartily mourn for these things, modestly & 
seasonably stirr up others to doe their duty. Ifthe Church 
cannot be reformed, they may use their liberty, as is speci- 
fied, chap; 13. sect: 4. But this all the godly are bound 
unto, even every one to do his indeavour, according to his 
powr & place, that the unworthy may be duly proceeded 
against, by the Church to whom this matter doth apper- 
taine. 


Olas ee 


Of the comunion of Churches one with another. 
Authough Churches be distinct, & therfore may not a 


e555 2. 
be confoided one with another: & equall, & therfore have Rom. 16. 16 


230 


t Core6..19 
Acts 15, 23 
Rev 2, 1 


Cant. 8. 8 


Acts 15: 2 


Acts 15. 6. 


: 22. 23 


Ezek 34. 4. 


Gall 2. 11 to 14. 


THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


not dominion one over another: yet all the churches ought 
to preserve Church-communion one with another,’ because 
they are all united unto Christ, not only as a mysticall, 
but as a politicall head; whence is derived @ communion 
suitable therunto. 

2 The communion of Churches is exercised sundry 
wayes. 

I By way of mutuall care in taking thought for one 
anothers wellfare. 

It. By way of Consultation one with another, when wee 
have‘occasion to require the judgment & counsell of other 
churches, touching any person, or cause wherwith they 
may be better acquainted then our selves. As the church 
of Antioch consulted with the Apostles, & Elders of the 
church at Ierusalem, about the question of circumcision 
of the gentiles, & about the false teachers that broached 
that doctrine. In which case, when any Church wanteth 
light or peace amongst themselves, it is a way of commun- 
ion of churches (according to the word) to meet together 
by their Elders & other messengers in a synod, to con- 
sider & argue the points in doubt, or difference;? & have- 
ing found out the way of truth & peace, to commend the 
same by their letters & messengers to the churches, whom 
the same may concern. [24] But if a Church be rent 
with divisions amongst themselves, or ly under any open 
scandal, & yet refuse to consult with other churches, for 
healing or removing of the same; it is matter of just 
offence both to the Lord Jesus, & to other churches, as 
bewraying too much want of mercy & faithfulness, not to 
seek to bind up the breaches & wounds of the church & 
brethren; & therfore the state of such a church calleth 
aloud upon other churches, to excertise a fuller actvor 
brotherly communion, to witt, by way of admonition. 

III A third way then of coOmunion of churches is by 
way of admonition, to witt, in case any publick offéce be 
found in a church, which they either discern not, or are 
slow in proceeding to use the medes for the removing & 
healing of. Paul had no authority over Peter, yet when 
he saw Peter not walking with a right foot, he publickly 





1 Compare Cotton, Way of the Churches, pp. 102, 103. 
2 See Cotton, Keyes, 18, a passage which the writer must have had before him. 


TEXT OF THE PLATFORM 


rebuked him before the church: though churches have no 
more authority one over another, then one Apostle had 
over another; yet as one Apostle might admonish another, 
so may one church admonish another, & yet without usur- 
pation.’ In which case, if the church that lyeth under 
offence, do not harken to the church which doth admonish 
her, the church is to acquait other neighbour-churches 
with that offéce, which the offending church still lyeth 
under, together with their neglect of the brotherly admo- 
nition given unto them; wherupon those other churches 
are to joyn in seconding the admoniti6 formerly givé: and 
if still the offéding church continue in obstinacy & im- 
penitency, they may forbear communion with them; & are 
to proceed to make use of the help of a Synod, or counsell 
of neighbour-churches walkig orderly (if a greater canot 
conveniétly be had) for their conviction.? If they hear 
not the Synod, the Synod having declared them to be ob- 
stinate, particular churches, approving & accepting of the 
judgmét of the Synod, are to declare the sentence of non- 
comunion respectively concerning them: & therupon out 
of a religious care to keep their own communion pure, 
they may justly withdraw themselves from participation 
with them at the Lords table, & from such other acts of holy 
coOmunion, as the communion of churches doth otherwise 
allow, & require. Nevertheless, if any members of such a 
church as lyeth under publick offence; doe not consent to 
the offence of the church, but doe in due sort beare witness 
against it, they are still to be received to wonted commun- 
ion: for it is not equall, that the innocent should suffer with 
the offensive. [25] Yea furthermore; if such innocent 
members after due wayting in the use of all good meanes 
for the healing of the offence of their own church, shall 
at last (with the allowace of the counsel of neighbour- 
churches) withdraw from the fellowship of their own 
church & offer themselves to the fellowship of another; 
wee judge it lawfull for the other church to receive them 
(being otherwise fitt) as if they had been orderly dismissed 
to them from their own church. 

IV A fourth way of communion of churches, is by 
way of participation: the members of one church occasion- 


1 Jéid., 19. Here, too, Cotton’s language is closely followed. 
2 Compare /é7d., pp. 18, 24, 25; also, Way of the Churches, 108, 109. 


231 


Math 18. 15, 16, 
17. by proportion 


Gea 18. 25. 


230 


TCOr t2.) 13 


Rom 16. x 


Acts 18. 27 


Acts 11, 22 
vers 29. 


Rom 73. 26, 27. 


Galla 2. 1,2, &9g 
by proportion. 


Isay 40. 20. 
Cant 8. 8, o. 


THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


ally comming unto another, wee willingly admitt them to 
partake with us at the Lords table, it being the seale of 
our communion not only with Christ, nor only with the 
members of our own church, but also with all the churches 
of the saints: in which regard, wee refuse not to baptize 
their children presented to us, if either their own minister 
be absent, or such a fruite of holy fellowship be desired 
with us. In like case such churches as are furnished with 
more ministers then one, doe willingly afford one of their 
own ministers to supply the place of an absent or sick 
minister of another church for a needfull season.’ 

V A fifth way of Church-communion is, by way of 
recomendation when a member of one church hath occa- 
sion to reside in another church; if but for a season, wee 
cOmend him to their watchfull ffellowship by letters of 
recommendation : but if he be called to settle his abode 
there, wee commit him according to his desire, to the 
ffellowship of their covenant, by letters of dismission.’ 

VI A sixt way of Church-communion, is in case of 
WVeed, to minister reliefe & succour one unto another : 
either of able members to furnish them with officers; or 
of outward support to the necessityes of poorer churches; 
as did the churches of the Gentiles contribute liberally 
to the poor saints at lerusalem.’* 

3. When a copany of beleivers purpose to gather 
into church fellowship, it is requisite for their safer pro- 
ceeding, & the maintaining of the communion of churches, 
that they signifie their intent unto the neighbour-churches, 
walking according unto the order of the Gospel, & de- 
sire their presence, & help, & right hand of fellowship 
which they ought readily to give unto them, when their* 
is no just cause of excepting against their proceedings.’ 

4 Besides these severall wayes of communion, there 
is also a way of propagation of churches; when a church 
shall grow too nu- [26] merous, it is a way, & fitt season, 
to propagate one Church out of an other, by sending forth 
such of their mébers as are willing to remove, & to pro- 


1 Here again the writer made considerable use of Cotton, Keyes, p. 17; though 
the communion by baptism and exchange of ministers is his own conception. 

2 Compare Cotton, Keyes, pp. 17, 18. 

3 Compare Jézd., 18; Way of the Churches, pp. 107, 108. 

4 Read there. See errata. 

5 Compare Cotton, Way of the Churches, pp. 5, 6. 


TEXT OF THE PLATFORM 


cure some officers to them, as may enter with them into 
church-estate amongst themselves : as Bees, when the 
hive is too full, issue forth by swarmes, & are gathered 
into other hives, soe the Churches of Christ may doe the 
same upon like necessity; & therin hold forth to the 
the right hand of fellowship, both in their gathering into 
a church; & in the ordination of their officers.’ 


(ieee xX V I. 
Of Synods. 


Synods orderly assembled, & rightly proceeding ac- 
cording to the pattern, Acts. 15. we acknowledg as the 


233 


ordinance of Christ :? & though not absolutely necessary Actsrs. 2. to. 15. 


to the being, yet many times, through the iniquity of 
men, & perversness’ of times, necessary to the wel- 
being of churches, for the establishment of truth, & 
peace therin. 

2 Synods being spirituall & ecclesiasticall assem- 
blyes, are therfore made up of spirituall & ecclesiasticall 
causes. The next efficient cause of them under Christ, 
is the powr of the churches, sending forth their Elders, 


[&] other messengers; who being mett together in the name Acts 15, ,2,3 


of Christ, are the matter of a Synod:’ & they in argueing, vers6. 
debating & determining matters of religion according to vers 7 to 23 


the word, & publishing the same to the churches whom it 
concerneth, doe put forth the proper & formall acts of a 


Synod; to the convictio of errours, & heresyes, & the es- vers a1. 


tablishment of truth & peace in the Churches, which is Acts 16 4. 15. 


the end of a Synod. 

3. Magistrates, have powr to call a Synod, by calling 
to the Churches to send forth their Elders & other mes 
sengers, to counsel & assist them in matters of religion: 
but yett the constituting of a Synod, is a church act, & 


may be transacted by the churches, even when civil mag- Acts 15. 


istrates may be enemyes to churches and to church as- 
semblyes.* 
4 It belongeth unto Synods & counsels, to debate & 





1 Here again the writer has made use of Cotton, Keyes, p. 19. See also Way of 
the Churches, pp. 109, 110. 
2 Cotton, Keyes, p. 23. 
3 Result of a Synod at Cambridge . . . Anno, 1646, p. 49. 
4 Compare sees Pp. 70-72. 
IO 


234 


ACLS ener t .4 2) 10 
7s 1 Chrozs5.13. 


2 Chron 20: 6, 7. 
Acts 15. 24 
vers 28, 29. 


Acts 15. 


Acts 15. 2 


Acts 15:2 
vers 22, 23 


Act 2. 41. 47. 
CAD .4, T5208 


THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


determine controversies of faith, & cases of consciéce ; to 
cleare from the word holy directions for the holy worship 
of God, & good government of the church; to beare wit- 
ness against mal-administration & [27] Corruption in doc- 
trine or maners in any particular Church, & to give direc- 
tions for the reformation therof: Not to exercise Church- 
censures in way of discipline, nor any other act of church- 
authority or jurisdiction: which that presidentiall Synod 
did forbeare. 

5s The Synods directions & determinations, so farr 
as consonant to the word of God, are to be received with 
reverence & submission; not only for their agreement 
therwith (which is the principall ground therof, & with- 
out which they bind not at all:) but also secondarily, for 
the powr wherby they are made, as, being an ordinance of 
God appointed therunto in his word. 

6 Because it is difficult, if not impossible, for many 
churches to com altogether in one place, in all their 
mébers universally: therfore they may assemble by their 
delegates or messengers, as the church of Antioch went 
not all to Ierusalem, but some select men for that pur- 
pose. Because none are or should be more fitt to know 
the state of the churches, nor to advise of wayes for the 
good. therof then Elders; therfore it is fitt that in the 
choice of the messengers for such assemblies, they have 
special respect uto such. Yet in as much as not only Paul 
& Barnabas, but certayn others also were sent to leru- 
salem from Antioch. Acts. 15. & when they were come 
to Ierusalem, not only the Apostles & Elders, but other 
brethren also doe assemble, & meet about the matter ; 
therfore Synods are to consist both of Elders, & other 
church-members, endued with gifts, & sent by the 
churches, not excluding the presence of any brethren in 
the churches, 


CHAP? avenr 


Of the Civil Magistrates powr tn Matters Ecclesiastical. 


Ir is lawfull, profitable. & necessary for christians 
to gather themselves into Church estate, and therin 
to exercise all the ordinaces of christ according unto 
the word, although the consent of Magistrate could 


TEXT OF THE PLATFORM 235 


not be had therunto,’ because the Apostles & christians in 
their time did frequently thus practise, when the Magis- 
trates being all of them Jewish or pagan, & mostly 
persecuting enemies, would give no countenance or con- 
sent to such matters. 

2 Church-government stands in no opposition to John 18, 36 
civil govenment of coOmon-welths, nor any intrencheth 
upon the authority of [28] Civil Magistrates in their 
jurisdictions ; nor any whit weakneth their hands in es dae 
erning ; but rather strengthneth them, & furthereth the 
people in yielding more hearty & conscionable obedi- 
ence tito them, whatsoever some ill affected persons to 
the wayes of Christ have suggested, to alienate the affec- 
tions of Kings & Princes from the ordinances of Christ; 
as if the kingdome of Christ in his church could not rise 
& stand, without the falling & weakning of their 
government, which is also of Christ: wheras the contrary Isay 49. 23. 
is most true, that they may both stand together & 
flourish the one being helpfull unto the other, in their 
distinct & due administrations. 

The powr & authority of Magistrates is not for the 
restraling of churches, or any other good workes, but for 
helping in & furthering therof; & therfore the consent Saat 4: 
countenance of Magistrates when it may be had, is not to 
be sleighted, or lightly esteemed; but on the contrary; it 
is part of that honour due to christian Magistrates to de- 
sire & crave their consent & approbation therin: which 
being obtayned, the churches may then proceed in their 
way with much more encouragement, & comfort.? 

4 Itis notin the powr of Magistrates to compell their 
subjects to become church-members, & to partake at the 
Lords table:* for the priests are reproved, that brought 
tworthy ones into the sactuarie: then, as it was unlawfull Ezek 44. 7, 9 
for the preists, so it is as unlawfull to be done by civil 
Magistrates. Those whom the church is to .cast out if1Cors. 1 
they were in, the Magistrate ought not to thrust into the 
church, nor to hold them therin. , 


1 Cotton expresses the same view in different language, Way of the Churches, 
D6. 

2 Compare Cotton’s statement of New England theory and practice, Way of the 
Churches, pp. 6, 7. 

3 Compare Cotton, Keyes, p. 51; the same idea is expressed in The Result of a 
Synod at Cambridge . . . Anno, 1646, p. 4. See ante, p. 190. 


236 


Matth 20 25, 26. 


2 Chron 26 16. 17. 


Psal 82. 2 


t) lim’ 2%. 12 


1 Kings 15. 14. 
22. 43 

2 Kings 12. 3c 
14. 4. C 15. 35- 
7 Kings 20. 42. 
Job 29, 25¢ 31 
26. 28. 

Neh 13 

Jonah 3. 7. 
Ezra 7. 

Dan 3. 29. 


1 Kings 20 
28. vers 42 


iS 


THE CAMBRIDGE SYNOD AND PLATFORM 


5 As itis unlawfull for church-officers to meddle with 
the sword of the Magistrate, so it is ilawfull for the Magis- 
trate to meddle with the work proper to church-officers. 
the Acts of Moses & David, who were not only Prices, but 
Prophets, ‘were extraordinary; therfore not imitabie 
Against such usurpation the Lord witnessed, by smiting 
Uzziah with leprosie, for presuming to offer incense 

6 It is the duty of the Magistrate, to take care of 
matters of religion, & to improve his civil authority for the 
observing of the duties commanded in the first, as well as 
for observing of the duties commanded in the second 
table. They are called Gods. The end of the Magistrates 
office, is not only the quiet & peaceable life of the subject, 
in matters of righteousness & honesty, but also in matters 
of godliness, yea of all godliness.” Moses, Joshua, David, 
Soloma, [29| Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah,* are 
much commended by the Holy Ghost, for the putting forth 
their authority in matters of religion: on the contrary, 
such Kings as have been fayling this way, are frequently 
taxed & reproved by the Lord. & not only the Kings of 
Judah, but also Job, Nehemiah, the king of Niniveh, 
Darius, Artaxerxes, Nebucadnezar,* whom none looked at 
as types of Christ,’ (thouh® were it soe, there were no place 
for any just objection,) are coméded in the book of God, 
for exercising their authority this way. 

7 The object of the powr of the Magistrate, are not 
things meerly inward, & so not subject to his cognisance 
& view, as unbeleife hardness of heart, erronious opin- 
ions not vented; but only such things as are acted by the 
outward man;’ neither is their powr to be exercised, in 
commanding such acts of the outward man, & punishig the 
neglect therof, as are but meer invétions, & devices of 
men; but about such acts, as are commanded & forbid- 
den in the word; yea such as the word doth clearly deter- © 
mine, though not alwayes clearly to the judgment of the 
Magistrate or others, yet clearly in it selfe. In these he 
of right ought to putt forth his authority, though oft-times 
actually he doth it not.* 


1 Compare Result of a Synod, pp. 1 and following. 


2 Jbtd., pp. 34-36. 3 [bid., p. 22. 
4 Tbid., pp. 22, 23, 25-29. 5 Jéid. 
§ Read though. 7 Compare /d7d., pp. 15, 16. 


8 This passage shows that Mather must have been familiar with the tentative 
Result of a Synod of 1646. (Axte, pp. 189-193.) See /édzd., p. 4. 


mex T OR VPRE PUATEFORM 23 


8 Idolatry, Blasphemy, Heresy, venting corrupt & Hea ie 
pernicious opinions, that destroy the foundation, open con- _ vers 42. 
tempt of the word preached, prophanation of the Lords Zach 13. 5, 
day, disturbing the peaceable administration & exercise of z Tim's. 2. 
the worship & holy things of God, & the like, are to be ages 
restrayned, & punished by civil authori 

g If any church one or more shall grow schismaticall, 
rending it self from the communion of other churches, or 
shall walke incorrigibly or obstinately in any corrupt way 
of their own, contrary to the rule of the word; in such 
case, the Magistrate is to put: forth his coercive powr, Joshua 22 
asemme inatter shall require. The tribes ongems side 

Jordan intended to make warr against the other tribes, 
for building the altar of witness, whom they 
suspected to have turned away 
therin from following 


of the Lord. 
FINIS 


[ 30 Blank | 
[31] A TABLE OF THE CONTENTS [A sim- 
ple list of the titles of the chapters, here omitted. | 


Errata 


The faults escaped in some of the bookes thus amended 

Note that the first figures stands for page the next for line pag 8 
Ig. r they. I0 11. r not, be. 13. 26. r admission. p 16. 28 r Philip. 17. 5. 
erties 10,16, 15, 28. r not bee adm. 19. r one, r to. 21. 21. t con- 
vinced. 25. 35. r there. 


1 Compare /é7zd., pp. 5, 6. 


XI 


THE HALF WAY: COVENANT DECISIONS OF 
1657 AND 1662 


EDITIONS AND REPRINTS 
A. THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE MINISTERIAL ASSEMBLY, 1657 


The manuscript is in the possession of the American Antiquarian Society, 
Worcester, Mass. 

A Disputation concerning Church-Members and their Children in Answer to 
XXTJ. Questions ; London, 1659, 4° pp. [viii] 31.! 

In abstract in I. Hubbard, General History of New England, ed. Boston, 
1848, pp. 563-569. 

II. Felt, Zeclestastical History of New England, Boston, 1855-62, II: 154- 
158. 

B. THE RESULT OF THE SYNOD OF 1662 

The manuscript is in the possession of the American Antiquarian Soctety. 

I. Propositions Concerning the Subject of Baptism and Consociation of 
Churches, Collected and Confirmed out of the Word of God, by a Synod of Elders 
and Messengers of the Churches tn Massachusets-Colony in New-England. Assem- 
bled at Boston, according to Appointment of the Honoured General Court, In the 
Year 1662, etc., Cambridge: Printed by S.[amuel] G.[reen] for Hezekiah Usher 
at Boston in New-England, 1662, 4° pp. xvi, 32. 

II. With same title, but without naming the place of publication, and with the 
addition of the Axszwer of the Dissenting Brethren, i. e., Chauncy, Anti-Synodalia 
Scripta Americana. [London], 1662. 

III. Mather, Wagnalia, London, 1702. Ed. 1853-5, Il: 279-301.? 

IV. Results of Three Synods, etc. Boston, 1725, pp. 50-93. 

V. The Original Constitution, Order and Faith of The New England 
Churches, etc. Boston, 1812, pp. 69-118. 

VI. Congregational Quarterly, IV: 275-286. (July, 1862.) 

Beside these publications of the full text of the result, the portion which has to 
do with Consociation of Churches was reprinted by Increase Mather, A Disguzsition 
Concerning Ecclesiastical Councils, Boston, 1716, pp. 40-47; republished in Con- 
gregational Quarterly, XII: 366-369 (July, 1870). 

An abstract of the result was given by Hubbard, General History, pp. 587-590. 


SOURCES 


Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, Hartford, 1850, etc., 1: 281, 288, 
289, 293, 302, 437, 438; IL: 53-55, 67, 69, 70, 84, 109, 516, 517. 


1 The publication was effected by Nathanael (and probably Increase) Mather. See Brznlep 
Catalogue, 1: 133. 
2 Dexter has pointed out that Mather’s reprint is inaccurate; see Cong. Quart., IV: 275. 


(238) 


ITS; LITERATURE 239 


Records of . . . Massachusetts, Boston, 1853-4, III: 419; IV, Pt. I: 280; 
Ptofi338, 60, 627 

Records of the Colony « . . of New Haven, Hartford, 1857-8, II: 195-198. 

Acts of the Commissioners of the United Colonies, (in Records of . . Ply- 
mouth,) Boston, 1859, II: 328. 

The sources are largely epitomized by Felt, Zeclesiastical History of New Eng- 
land, Boston, 1855, 1862, II: 153-159, 187, 189-Ig9I, 287-289, 291-296, 299-302, 
310, 312, 333, 339-341, 365, 406, 407, 409. 


CONTROVERSIAL PAMPHLETS 


a. Opposed to the result. 1. Charles Chauncy, Anti-Synodalia 
Scripta Americana, etc. [London] 1662; Printed in connection with the result of the 
Synod as issued at London ;! 2. Answer of the Dissenting Ministers in the Synod, 
respecting Baptism and the Consociation of Churches, Cambridge, 1662 ;? 3. John 
Davenport, Another Essay For Investigation of the Truth, in Ansvver to Two 
Questions, concerning (a) The subject of Baptism. (b) The Consociation of Churches. 
Cambridge, 1663, with preface by Increase Mather® and an appendix by Nicholas 
Street ;4 


b. In defense of the result. 1. John Allin, Axtmadversions upon 
the Antisynodalia Americana, etc., Cambridge, 1664 [Reply to Chauncy]; 2. Jona- 
than Mitchell and Richard Mather,® A Defence of the Answer and Arguments of 
the Synod met at Boston in the year 1662. . . Against the Reply made thereto 
by the Rev. Mr. J. Davenport [this portion of the work by R. Mather]® . . . s- 
gether with an Answer to the Apologetical Preface set before that Essay, [here 
Mitchell answers Increase Mather,] Cambridge, 1664; 3. Collection of the Testi- 
monies of the Fathers of the New England Churches respecting Baptism. Cam- 
bridge, 1665?7 4. Increase Mather, Zhe First Principles of New-England, 
Concerning the Subject of Baptisme & Communion of Churches. Collected partly 
out of the Printed Books, but chiefly out of the Original Manuscripts of the First 
and chiefe Fathers in the New-English Churches, etc., Cambridge, 1675; 5. In- 
crease Mather, 4 Discourse concerning the Subject of Baptisme, Wherein the 
present Controversies . . . are enquired into. Cambridge, 1675. 


LITERATURE 

I. Hubbard, General History of New England {Account written soon after 
1675],° ed. Boston, 1848, pp. 562-571, 587-591; 2. Mather, J/agzalza, London, 
1702, ed. Hartford, 1853-5, II: 276-315; 3. Neal, History of New-England, Lon- 





1 Thomas, Hist. of Printing, 1: 255, believed this to have been issued also at Cambridge, 
Mass., in 1662. This is almost certainly a mistake. See Brinley Catalogue, I: 114. 

2 So given by Dexter, Cog. as seen, Bibl. No. 1935. May it not be identical with No, 1? I 
have not been able to find it, and am inclined to believe it a mistake. 

3 The youthful Mather soon changed his views, under the influence of Mitchell’s arguments, 
and wrote in defense of the result. Compare Wagunadza, ed. 1853-5, II: 310. 

4 Nicholas Street was teacher of the church at New Haven of which Davenport was pastor. 

5 The work was published anonymously. 

8 Davenport made rejoinder to R. Mather, but the reply was never printed. See Cong. Quart., 
IV: 287. 

7 I know nothing of this work save the title as given in Thomas, (7st. Printing tn America, 
II: 315. This classification is, therefore, purely conjectural. May this not be an erroneous descrip- 
tion of I. Mather’s First Principles ? 

8 Hubbard speaks of Increase Mather’s First Princzdies. etc., as ‘‘ published not long since.”’ 


240 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


don, 1720, II: 335-337; 4. Hutchinson, History of the Colony of Mass. Bay, ed. 
London, 1765, I: 223, 224; 5. Trumbull, History of Connecticut, ed. New Haven, 
1818, 1: 296-313, 456-472; 6. Upham, Ratio Discipline, Portland, Me., 1829, pp. 
221-228; 7. Leonard Bacon, 7hirteen Historical Discourses, on the completion of 
200 years, from the Beginning of the First Church in New-fHaven, New Haven, 
1839, pp. 108, 139-146; 8. Uhden, Geschichte der Congregationalisten in Neu- 
England, u.s.w., Leipzig, 1842, Conant’s translation, 7e New England Theocracy, 
etc., Boston, 1858, pp. 163-200; 9. Clark, Historical Sketch of the Cong. Churches 
in Mass., Boston, 1858, pp. 44, 45, 69-73; 10. Palfrey, zstory of New England, 
Boston, 1858-64, Il: 486-493, III: 81-88, 116-119; 11. Leonard Bacon, Azstor7- 
cal Discourse, in Contributions to the Ecclestastical History of Connecticut, New 
Haven, 1861, pp. 16-32; 12. H. M. Dexter, Two Hundred Years Ago, in New 
England, in Congregational Quarterly, 1V : 268-291 (July, 1862) [a most valuable 
and almost exhaustive monograph on the Synod of 1662]; 13. D. T. Fiske, Zhe 
Half- Way Covenant, in Contributions to the Ecclesiastical History of Essex County, 
Mass., Boston, 1865, pp. 270-282; 14. I. N. Tarbox, A/inutes of the General As- 
sociation of Cong. Churches of Mass., Boston, 1877, pp. 35-42; 15. Dexter, Con- 
gregationalism . . . as seen in its Literature, New York, 1880, pp. 467-476 ; 
16. G. L. Walker, History of the First Church in Hartford, Hartford, 1884, pp. 
151-211 [corrects the misrepresentations as to the relations of the quarrel in the 
Hartford church to the Half-Way Covenant movement into which nearly all earlier 
writers have fallen]; 17. G. L. Walker, Jonathan Edwards and the Half-Way Cove- 
nant, in New Englander, XLII: 601-614 (Sept., 1884); 18. Doyle, Znuglish in 
America, The Puritan Colonies, London, 1887, II: 94-100. 


THE RECEPTION OF THE SYSTEM 


a. By the Salem Church, White, Vew England Congregationalism, pp. 40-78 
passim (original records); 4. By the First Church, Boston, Hill, Wistory of the 
Old South Church, Boston, 1890, 1: 5-248 passim, c. By the Hartford Church, 
John Davenport, Letter to John Winthrop, Jr., in 7 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., X :}59- 
62; Walker, Hzstory of the First Church, Hartford, 1884, pp. 182-211; d. By the 
Stratford Church, Cothren, (7story of Ancient Woodbury, Waterbury, 1854, pp. 113 
-135; ¢. By the Dorchester Church, Records of First Ch. at Dorchester, Boston, 
1891, pp. 35, 40, 49, 55, 70 [original records of value]. 





THE STODDARDEAN DISCUSSION 

I. Increase Mather, Zhe Order of the Gospel, Boston, 1700;! 2. Stoddard, 
The Doctrine of Instituted Churches Explained and Proved from the Word of God, 
London, 1700;* 3. [I. & C. Mather?] Te Young Man's claim unto the Sacrament 
of the Lords-Supper . 1, Samtye a) x . John Quick . . . With aie 





1 In general, a defense of the older New England views as to church-membership, rights ot 
the brethren in church administration, ‘‘relations,’’ covenants, synods, etc. 

2 Apparently drawn out by Mather’s book, a large portion of the positions of which it tra- 
verses, Full presentation of the famous view on admission to the Supper, pp. 18-22. Stoddard 
affirms the existence of National Churches, denies the necessity of church covenants, and declares 
that the minister alone, without the intermeddling of the brethren, is to decide on fitness for ad- 
mission to the sacraments. 


ITS LITERATURE 241 


of those Churches from what is Offensive to them in a Discourse lately Published, 
under the Title of, The Doctrine of Instituted Churches, 1700;' 4. Stoddard, 7%e 
Inexcusableness of Neglecting the Worship of God, under A Pretence of being in 
an Unconverted Condition, Shewn in a Sermon Preached at Northampton, The 
17th. Decemb. 1707. Boston, 1708; 5. Increase Mather, A Dissertation, wherein 
the Strange Doctrine lately Published in a Sermon, the Tendency of which ts to En- 
courage Unsanctified Persons (while such) to approach the Holy Table of the Lord, ts 
Examined and Confuted. Boston, 1708; 6. Stoddard, 4x Appeal to the Learned. 
Being A Vindication of the Right of Visible Saints to the Lords Supper, Though 
they be destitute of a Saving Work of Gods Spirit on their Hearts: Against the 
Lxceptions of Mr. Increase Mather. Boston, 1709; 7. An Appeal, Of some of 
the Unlearned, both to the Learned and Unlearned ; Containing some Queries on S, 
Stoddard’s Appeal, Boston, 1709. An article of some value is that of [W. Bement], 
Stoddardeanism, in New Englander, 1V : 350-355 (1846). 





THE EFFORT FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE HALF-WAY SYSTEM 


Opponents. 1. Jonathan Edwards, 4x Humble Inquiry Into the Rules of 
the Word of God, Concerning the Qualifications Requisite to a Compleat Standing 
and full Communion In the Visible Christian Church. Boston, 1749, Edinburgh, 
1790 ;? 2. J. Edwards, Wisrepresentations Corrected, and Truth Vindicated, Bos- 
ton, 1752 [Reply to No. 26, below]; 3. Bellamy, Dialogue on the Christian Sacra- 
ments, Boston, 1762; 4. Jacob Green, Christian Baptism |‘‘ Sermon Delivered at 
Hanover, in New-Jersey, Nov. 4. 1764”];4 5. J. Green, Az Jnguiry Into The Con- 
stitution and Discipline of the Jewish Church ; In order to cast some Light on the 
Controversy, concerning Qualifications for the Sacraments of the New Testament, 
New York, 1768; 6. J. Green, A Reply to the Reverend Mr. George Beckwith's 
Answer, New Haven [1769], [Reply to No. 31]; 7. Bellamy, Zhe Half- Way-Cove- 
nant. A Dialogue, New Haven, 1769;° 8. Bellamy, Zhe Jnconsistence of Re- 
nouncing The Half-Way-Covenant, and yet retaining the Half-Way-Practice. A 
Dialogue,’ New Haven [1769], [Reply to No. 30]; 9. Bellamy, Zat there ts but 
one Covenant, whereof Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are Seals, viz. the Cove- 
nant of Grace . . . and, the Doctrine of an External Graceless Covenant, Lately 
advanced, By the Rev. Mr. Moses Mather . . . Shewn to be an unscriptural 
Doctrine [Reply to No. 27]. It has as preface, A Dialogue between a Minister and 
his Parishioner, concerning the Half-Way-Covenant,’ New Haven, 1769 [Reply to 





1 Endorsed as a reply to the /zstituted Churches, by John Higginson, William Hubbard, 
Zechariah Symmes, Sen., Samuel Cheever, Nicholas Noyes, Jeremiah Shepard, Joseph Gerrish, 
and Edward Paison. 

2? Primarily an attack on Stoddardeanism; opposes the Half-Way Covenant system on pp. 
128-131. Edwards graduated at Yale in 1720. Pastor at Northampton, Mass. 

3 Yale, 1735, pastor Bethlem, Conn. Written soon after Edwards’s dismission from North- 
ampton, but not printed till 1762, A defence of Edwards. Opposed to the Half-Way Covenant by 
implication rather than explicitly. 

4 Harvard, 1744, pastor Hanover, N. J. A follower of Whitefield, Edwardean in spirit and 
opposed to seeking baptism for offspring when consciously unfit for the Lord’s Table. 

5 A vigorous defence of Edwards’s views. 

6 Bellamy’s first Half-Way Covenant dialogue —a readable and forcible attack on the system. 

7 Bellamy’s second dialogue. 

8 Bellamy’s third dialogue. 


242 THF HALF-WAY COVENANT 


No. 28]; 10. Bellamy, Zhe Sacramental Controversy brought to a Point. The 
Fourth Dialogue between a Minister and his Parishioner. New Haven [1770], 
[Reply to No. 33]; 11. Bellamy, 4 careful and strict Examination of the External 
Covenant . . . A Reply to the Rev. Mr. Moses Mather’s Piece, entituled, The 
Visible Church in Covenant with God, further illustrated, New Haven [1770], [Re- 
ply to No. 34]; 12. Israel Holley, A Letter to the Reverend Mr. Bartholomew of 
Harwinton : Containing A Few Remarks, Upon some of his Arguments and Di- 
vinity,! Hartford, 1770, [Reply to No. 32]; 13. Redes of Trial: Or Half-Way 
Covenant Examined. In a letter to the Parishioner. By an Observer of the Dis- 
pute, New London, 1770,? [Reply to No. 28]; 14. Chandler Robbins, 4 Reply to 
some Essays lately published by John Cotton, Esq. (of Plymouth) Relating to Bap- 
tism,® Boston, 1773, [Reply to No. 37]; 15. C. Robbins, Some brief Remarks on 
A Piece published by John Cotton, Esq, of Plymouth, Boston, 1774, [Reply to No. 
38]; 16. Cyprian Strong, 4 Discourse on Acts I1: g2. In which the Practice of 
Owning the Covenant is Examined,* Hartford, 1780, 2d ed. 1791; 17. C. Strong, 
Animadverstons on the Substance of Two Sermons preached at Stepney by John 
Lewis, A.M., Hartford, 1789, [Reply to No. 25]; 18. C. Strong, Anz ILnguiry 
Wherein the end and design of Baptism . . . are particularly considered,’ 
Hartford, 1793; 19. Nathanael Emmons, Dissertation on the Scripture Qualifica- 
tions for Admission and Access to the Christian Sacraments: comprising Some 
Strictures on Dr. Hemmenway’s Discourse concerning the Church,’ Worcester, 1793, 
[Reply to No. 43]; 20. Stephen West, 47 /uguiry into the Ground and Import of 
Infant Baptism,’ Stockbridge, 1794; 21. N. Emmons, Candid Reply to Dr. Hem- 
menways Remarks on his Dissertation, Worcester, 1795, [Reply to No. 44]; 22. 
C. Strong, 4 Second Inguiry into the Nature and Design of Christian Baptism.® 
Hartford, 1796; 23. S. West, 4 Dissertation on Infant Baptism in reply to the 
Rev. Cyprian Strong’s Second Inquiry on that Subject,® Hartford, 1798, [Reply to 
No. 22]; 24. Timothy Dwight, Sermon CLIX, in Theology ; Explained and De- 
fended in a Series of Sermons, ed. New Haven, 1823, IV: 338-344. 


Peculiar Views. 25. John Lewis, Christian Forbearance to weak Con- 
sciences a Duty of the Gospel. The Substance of Two Sermons,'° Hartford, 1789. 


1 Pastor at Suffield, Conn. Edwardean in view and friendly to Bellamy. Not very valuable. 

2 Anonymous. Unimportant. ‘The writer asserts that conversion is a prerequisite to admis- 
sion to the Sacraments. 

3 Yale, 1756, pastor Plymouth, Mass. A powerful argument against the system, which had 
been under discussion in the First Church since 1770. 

4 Yale, 1763, pastor Chatham, now Portland, Conn. A most vigorous attack on the system. 

5 One of the great works in opposition to the Half Way Covenant. 

6 Yale, 1767, pastor Franklin, Mass. 

7 Yale, 1755, pastor Stockbridge, Mass. 

5 Has to do only incidentally with the Half-Way Covenant. Strong’s views is: ‘‘that the 
children of believers are not in covenant, and are not to be baptized in token of their title to the 
blessings of the covenant, but as a mafkand token that their parents will keep covenant, and that 
their children are dedicated to God.” p. 114. : 

9 West combatted the Half-Way Covenant, but opposed Strong’s view that baptism was only 
a seal of the parents’ dedication of the child of God. 

10 Yale, 1770, pastor Stepney, now Rocky Hill, Conn. His view was that: ‘t The same quali- 
fications, which are necessary for an attendance on the Lord’s Supper, are necessary to bring a child 
to baptism ”’ but: ‘‘the absenting of a person, who wishes to avoid every sin, and walk in 
newness of life, yet fears to approach the table of the Lord —is not such a breach of covenant as 
debars him from bringing his children to baptism.’’ pp. 5, 6. 


ITS LITERATURE 243 


Defenders. 26. Solomon Williams, 7vue State of the Question concerning 

The Qualifications Necessary to lawful Communion in the Christian Sacraments} 
Boston, 1751, [Reply to No. 1]; 27. Moses Mather, Zhe Visible Church, in Cove- 
nant with God,» New York, 1759, [error for 1769]; 28. [Ebenezer Devotion], 7%e 
Flalf-way Covenant. A Dialogue between Joseph Bellamy, D.D., and a Parish- 
toner, Continued, by the Parishioner,? New London, 1769, [Reply to No. 7]; 29. 
The Parishioner having Studied the Point. Containing some Observations on the 
flalf-Way Covenant, Printed 1769,* [Reply to No. 7]; 30. [Nathanael Taylor ?] 
A Second Dialogue, between a Minister and his Parishioner, Concerning the Half- 
Way-Covenant,’ Hartford, 1769, [Reply to No. 7]; 31. George Beckwith, Vis7dle 
Saints lawful Right to Communion tn Christian Sacraments, Vindicated,’ New- 
London, 1769, [Reply to No. 4]; 32. Andrew Bartholomew, 4 Diéssertation, on The 
Qualifications, Necessary to A lawful Profession, and enjoying spectal Ordinances," 
Hartford [1769]; 33. [E. Devotion?], A Letter to the Reverend Joseph Bellamy, 
D.D., Concerning Qualifications for Christian Communion . . . From the 
Parishioner,’ New Haven [1770], [Reply to the preface of No. 9]; 34. Moses 
Mather, Zhe Visible Church, in Covenant with God; Further Illustrated, New 
Haven, 1770, [Reply to No. 9]; 35. [E. Devotion?], 4 Second Letter, to the Rev- 
erend Joseph Bellamy, D.D., Occasioned by his fourth Dialogue . . . From the 
Parishioner, New Haven [1770], [Reply to No. 10]; 36. Charles Chauncy, ‘‘ Break- 
ing of Bread” in remembrance of the dying Love of Christ, a Gospel institution. 
Five Sermons,’ Boston, 1772; 37. John Cotton, The general Practice of the 
Churches of New-England, relating to Baptism, Vindicated: or, Some Essays 
Delivered at several Church-Meetings in Plymouth,’ Boston [1772]; 38. 

John Cotton, Zhe General Practice of the Churches of New England, Relating to 
Baptism Further Vindicated, Boston, 1773, [Reply to No. 14]; 39. William Hart, 
A Scriptural Answer to this Question ‘‘ What are the Necessary Qualifications for 
Attendance upon the Sacraments of the New Covenant,’ New London, 

1772; 40. Moses Mather, 4 Brief View of the Manner in which the Controversy 
About Terms of Communion . . . Has been conducted, in the present day, 
New Haven, 1772; 41. Nathan Williams, 42 Anuguiry Concerning the Design and 


1 Harvard, 1719, pastor Lebanon, Conn. Strongly Stoddardean, little d7vect reference to the 
system. 

2 Yale, 1739, pastor Middlesex, now Darien, Conn. A powerful Stoddardean treatise. 

3 Yale, 1732, pastor Scotland, Conn. Stoddardean. 

4 Anonymous and without place — Ultra-Stoddardean. 

5 Yale, 1745, pastor New Milford, Conn. Curiously enough Dr. H. M. Dexter, Bibliog. No. 
3559, and the editors of Bellamy’s Works, ed. Boston, 1850, Il: 677-684, took this tract to be by 
Bellamy instead of against him. On the authorship see Israel Holly No. 12 above, and Prof. F. B. 
Dexter, Vale Graduates, p. 528. 5 i 

6 Yale, 1728, pastor Lyme, Conn. Stoddardean. An earnest defence of the Half-Way 
Covenant. 

7 Yale, 1731, pastor Harwinton, Conn. Opposed to Bellamy. 

8 Hot and personal. 

9 Harvard, 1721, pastor First Church, Boston. See pp. 106-113 for a strong presentation of a 
theory essentially Stoddardean. 

10 Harvard, 1730, pastor Halifax, Mass., but ill health had compelled retirement. Was now 
a member of the First Church, Plymouth, and the holder of civil offices (county treasurer, etc.). He 
strenuously resisted Robbins’s attempt to induce the Plymouth church to abandon the Half-Way 
practice. 

11 Yale, 1732, pastor Saybrook, Conn. Stoddardean. 

12 A general reply to Bellamy and defence of the Stoddardean view. Mather is said to have 
adopted Edwards’s view late in life. F. B. Dexter, Vale Graduates, p. 628. 


244 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


Importance of Christian Baptism and Discipline, In way of a Dialogue Between a 
Minister and his Neighbour,! Hartford, 1778, Boston, 1792; 42. Joseph Lathrop, 
A Church of God described, the Qualifications for Membership stated, and Christian 
Fellowship illustrated, in two Discourses,? Hartford, 1792; 43. Moses Hemmen- 
way, A Discourse concerning the Church, in which . . . a Right of Admission 
and Access to Special Ordinances, in their Outward Administrations and Inward 
Efficacy, {is| Stated and Discussed,? Boston, 1792; 44. M. Hemmenway, Remarks 
on Rev. Mr. Emmons’ Dissertation, Boston, 1794, [Reply to No. Io]. 


HE main purpose of the Massachusetts General Court in call- 
ing the Synod to meet at Cambridge in 1646 had been the 
settlement of the questions agitating the colonies as to baptism 
and church-membership.* The predominance of Presbyterianism 
at the time in England, and the machinations of those in New 
England who hoped by Presbyterian aid to overthrow the colonial 
churches and state, made these questions peculiarly pressing. But 
the cloud rolled away almost as quickly as it had arisen, and as the 
questions proposed by the Court encountered diversities of view 
among the representatives of the Congregational Churches assembled 
at Cambridge,’ the more generally accepted features of the Congre- 
gational system were embodied in the Platform, and the vexed 
points regarding baptism, no longer pressing for immediate solu- 
tion, were passed over in rather ambiguous phrases. This treat- 
ment of the subject was comparatively easy in 1648 because the 
opposition to the prevalent system had been largely championed 
by a defeated political party;.but had the Cambridge Synod been 
pressed to a vote, the probability is that it would have substantially 
anticipated the decisions of 1662. The question was really far 
more religious than political. It was one sure to arise in the state 
of New England society. And as the leaders of the first genera- 
tion passed rapidly away, soon after the close of the Cambridge 





1 Yale, 1755, pastor Tolland, Conn, Favors the Half-Way Covenant. The first edition bears 
the endorsements of Rev. Eliphalet Williams, East Hartford, Conn.; Rev. John Willard, Stafford, 
Conn.; Rey. Elizur Goodrich, Durham, Conn.; and Rev. Joseph Lathrop, West Springfield, Mass. 
The second edition has, in addition, Pres. Joseph Willard of Harvard; and Rev. Moses Hemmen- 
way of Wells, Me. 

2 Yale, 1754, pastor West Springfield, Mass. An able defence of Stoddardeanism. In 1793 ° 
Lathrop was offered the professorship of Divinity in Yale College; see WV. H. Hist. Soc. Papers, 
ITV: 260. 

3 Harvard, 1755, pastor Wells, Me. Dislikes the name Half-Way Covenant; but strongly 
favors the system and inclines toward Stoddardeanism. 

4 See ante, pp. 168-171. 5 Jbzd., p. 181. 


A RELIGIOUS QUESTION 245 


Synod, and the children of the emigrants grew to manhood and 
womanhood, the problem of baptism became every day more press- 
ing as a question vitally affecting the churches themselves, what- 
ever intermixture of political aspirations in regard to the franchise 
or taxation may have modified the discussions of 1645-8. ‘The 
political element, slight at all times in comparison with the relig- 
ious motive in the controversy, practically dropped out of sight 
after the defeat of Child and his associates. The second stage of 
the controversy on which we now enter was purely ecclesiastical. 
It was now solely as a problem of church polity that the position 
of the baptized but not regenerate members of the community 
was discussed.’ 

The original settlers of New England were men of tried relig- 
ious experience. Most of those who occupied positions of promi- 
nence in the community could give a reason for the faith that was 
in them. ‘They had been sifted out of the mass of the Puritans of 
England. The struggles through which they had gone, the type 
of piety which they had heard inculcated, and their efforts to over- 
come the spiritual inertia of the English Establishment, engendered 
prevailingly a deep, emotional, introspective faith, which looked 
upon a conscious regenerative work of the spirit of God in the 
heart as essential to Christian hope. And as the New England 
fathers held strongly to the doctrine that the visible church should 
consist of none but evident Christians,? none were admitted to the 
adult membership of the churches who could not relate some in- 
stance of the transforming operation of God in their own lives. 
The peculiar experience of the Puritans made the test a natural 
one for the first generation of New England settlers, and the pre-_ 
ponderating weight of opinion in the community viewed those who 
could not meet it as unfit for a share in the ordinances of the Gos- 
pel.’ This view involved a radical departure from the practice of 
the English Establishment; but the early Congregationalists clung 





1 See the forcible assertion of the non-political character of this discussion in D, T. Fiske, 
Discourse, in Cont, Eccles. Hist. Essex Co., Mass., Boston, 1865, pp. 271, 272. 

2 See Mather, Church-Government, pp. 8, 9 (Answer to No. 2 of XXXII Quest.); Hooker, 
ante, p. 143, etc. 

3 See e. g. Lechford, Plain Dealing, Trumbull’s reprint, p. 29. 


246 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


to a regenerate membership as an absolute essential to the prop- 
erly constituted church. 

But there was one exception to this rule that none were ac- 
counted of the church save those who could claim a definite 
religious experience and who had taken covenant pledges to 
each other and to God. The constitutive element in the church 
was the covenant, and this covenant, like that made with the house 
of Israel by God, was held to include not only the covenanting 
adult but his children.* Hence, from the first, the fathers of New 
England insisted that the children of church members were them- 
selves members, or in the covenant, and as such were justly en- 
titled to those church privileges which were adapted to their state 
of Christian development, of which the chief were baptism and the 
watchful discipline of the church.” They did not enter the church 
by baptism; they were entitled to baptism because they were al- 
ready members of the church.* Here then was an inconsistency 
in the application of the Congregational theory of the constitution 
of a church. While affirming that a proper church consisted only 
of those possessed of personal Christian character, the fathers ad- 
mitted to membership, in some degree at least, those who had no 
claim but Christian parentage. They sought to avoid the incon- 
venience of this duality of entrance by insisting that none who 

1 Cotton affirmed: ‘*‘ The same Covenant which God made with the Natzonxad7 Church of 
Israel and their Seed, It is the very same (for substance) and none other which the Lord maketh 
with any Congregationad/ Church and our Seed.”” Certain Queries Tending to Accommodation 

of Presbyterian & Congregationall Churches, London, 1654, p. 13. 

2 Morton recorded, under date of 1629: ‘‘ The two ministers [Skelton and Higginson at Salem] 

considered of the state of their children, together with their parents; concerning which, let- 
ters did pass between Mr. Higginson and Mr. Brewster, the reverend elder of the church at Pli- 
mouth, and they did agree in their judgments, namely, concerning the church membership of the 
children with their parents.”’? JZesmorzadl, ed. 1855, p. 101. 

Mather in Church-Government (Answer to 5 & 6 of the XXXII Questions), pp. 20, 21, said: 
‘‘Infants with us are Admitted Members in and with their Parents, so as to be Admitted to all 
Church priviledges of which Infants are capable, as namely to Baptisme.’’ ‘‘ They [the baptized 
children of the church] are also under Church-watch, & consequently subject, to the reprehensions, 
admonitions, & censures therof, for their healing and amendment, as need shall require.” Caszd. 
Platform. See ante, p. 224. 

3 ‘*The nature and use of Baptisme is to be a seale to confirme the Covenant of Grace be- 
tween God and his Church, and the Members thereof, as circumcision also was, Row. 4.11. Now 
a seale is not to make a thing that was not, but to confirme something that was before; and so 
Baptisme is not that which gives being to the Church, nor to the Covenant, but is for confirma- 
tion thereof.”” . . . ‘Children that are borne when their Parents are Church Members, are in 


Covenant with God even from their birth, Gez. 17. 7. 12. and their Baptisme did seale it to them.” 
Mather, Church-Government (Ans. to 4, 5, & 6 of XXXII Quest.), pp. 12, 20, 21. 


WHY A PRESSING QUESTION 247 


came into the church by birth ought to go on to the great privi- 
lege of adult years, the Lord’s Supper, without a profession of per- 
sonal regeneration.’ But the difficulties of the situation were not 
apparent in any marked degree till the children of the first settlers 
came to maturity.” Then, in addition to the two great divisions 
of early days,—the consciously regenerate and those who laid no 
claim to Christian character,— there arose a third class of the 
population, and one ever since familiarly known in every New 
England town,—a class of men and women whose parents had 
peen actively Christian, who had themselves been baptized and 
educated in the Christian faith, were well grounded in the knowl- 
edge of Christian truth, were students of the Bible and interested 
listeners in the sanctuary, who were desirous of bringing up their 
families in the way in which they themselves had been trained, and 
who were moral and earnest in their lives; yet could lay claim to 
no such experience as that which their parents had called a change 
of heart, and when asked as to any conscious work of God in their 
souls were compelled to admit that they could speak with confi- 
dence of none. It was the rise of this class that thrust the Half- 
Way Covenant problem upon the New England churches. 

Three courses of treatment were open to the churches in deal- 
ing with these persons,—each course liable to serious objections. 
They might have been admitted to all the privileges of commun- 
ion; and a few in New England, whose inclination toward the 
Presbyterian or Episcopal customs of the old country was strong, 
leaned even at an early period toward the admission to the Lord’s 
Supper of all who were intellectually familiar with the truths of 
the Gospel and of exemplary moral life.» But this position met 


with no general advocacy even among the class whom it would be 





1‘ But notwithstanding their Birthright, we conceive there is a necessity of their personall 


profession of Faith, and taking hold of Church-Covenant when they come to yeares . . . for 
without this it cannot so well be discerned; what fitnesse is in them for the Lords Table.’ Zézd., 
Deer: 


2 Compare Preface to the Propositions of 1662, p. xiii, on a later page. 

3 This was the view of Child and his fellow petitioners in 1646. See axte, p. 165. At an 
earlier time, 1641-2, Lechford recorded: ‘‘ Of late some Churches are of opinion, that any may be 
admitted to Church-fellowship, that are not extremely ignorant or scandalous: but this they are 
not very forward to practice, except at Newberry.”’ Plain Dealing, pp. 21, 22, Trumbull’s re- 
print, p. 56. 


248 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


supposed most to benefit. It was too positive an abandonment of 
the principle that the church should consist only of visible saints 
to be acceptable to those who had been trained by the fathers of 
New England. Yet, though advocated by but few, the fear that 
such a lowering of the terms of communion would take place did 
much to secure the acceptance of the Half-Way Covenant as the 
lesser of two evils.’ 

A second way of disposing of the problem would have been to: 
have denied to this class any right to church membership or 
church privileges. But this method of dealing was open to grave 
objections, both theoretic and practical. The class thus cut off 
from the churches would be large, it would leave the membership 
of the churches in a minority, it would give substance to the criti- 
cisms freely offered by the Puritan party in England that too large 
a portion of the inhabitants of New England were outside the 
churches as it was.” But more serious was the objection that all 
New England authorities had held these men and women to be by 
birth church-members, and the Congregational system of the day 
knew no way out of church covenant save death, dismission to: 
another covenant fold, personal withdrawal from a church in evi- 
dent error, or excommunication. And how was this class to be 
excommunicated when they had, in general, tried to live upright 
and godly lives, and the only charge against them was a want of a 
regenerative change which none but God could effect? The prin- 
ciple that men could enter a Congregational church by birth as. 
well as by profession once admitted, the membership of these per- 
sons was indubitable; and if members, why could they not enjoy 
and transmit the privileges of the church to their offspring, at 
least in so far as they themselves had received them? If church 
membership was a hereditary matter, what authority was there for 
limiting its descent to a single generation? ‘Then, too, there was 





1 Compare Mitchell, 4d Defence of the Answer [of 1662] . . . Against the Reply made 
thereto by . . . J. Davenport . . . together with an Answer to the Apologetical Pre- 
Jace set before that Essay, Cambridge, 1664, p. 45 (Mitchell’s reply to Increase Mather). See also 
Magnalia, ed. 1853-5, Il: 309, 310. 

2 See Quest. 1 of the XXXII Quest. Church-Government, p.1. Lechford, Plain Dealing,, 
p. 73, Trumbull’s reprint, pp. 150-152. 


DIFFICULTIES OF A SOLUTION 249 


a well-grounded fear on the part of many of the best men in New 
England that if the membership of the children of the church was 
denied, no basis would be left on which they could be held amena- 
ble to church discipline, and discipline was greatly valued by early 
Congregationalists as a means of Christian training. To deprive a 
large class in the community of its benefits seemed like giving 
them up to heathenism. Probably a dread of the prevalence of 
Baptist views, limiting baptism to adult believers, had also some- 
thing to do with the reluctance of the New England pastors to 
confine the rite to the children of visible saints.’ 

The objections to each of these two methods of dealing with 
the problem were so great that the New England churches at 
length settled down on what was practically a compromise. The 
standing of the unregenerate members in the church was held to 
entitle them to transmit church membership and baptism to their 
offspring; but their non-regenerate character made it impossible 
that they should become partakers of the Lord’s Supper. Mem- 
bers of the church they were, but not in “full communion.” At 
the same time, so solemn was the privilege of baptism believed to. 
be, that none of the non-regenerate members of the church could 
claim it for their children without assenting to the main truths of’ 
the Gospel scheme and promising fidelity and submission to the. 
discipline of the church of which they were members; in the phrase 
of the time, ‘“ owning the covenant.’ This was the result reached 
by the Ministerial Convention of 1657 and the Synod of 1662. It 
gave standing in the church for the class of moral but not regen-. 
erate people, it kept them under the influence of Christian obliga-. 
tion and discipline, it required from them the evidence of an 
intelligent comprehension of religious truth, and a public profes-. 
sion of willingness to guide their lives by Gospel principles and 
bring up their children in the fear of God. But it demanded no. 
personal sense of a change of heart. It was an illogical and incon-. 
sistent position; and as such could not long be maintained.. 





1 John Allin of Dedham, in his Axzmadversions upon the Antisynodalia Americana,, 
Cambridge, 1664, preface p. [ii], says: ‘‘We see evidently, that the Principles of our Dissenting. 
Brethren give great Advantages to the A utipedobaptists, which if we be silent, will tend much to 
their Encouragement and Encrease, to the Hazard of our Churches.”’ 

I 


250 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


Greatly modified early in the eighteenth century, it was wholly 
abandoned in the nineteenth. Its effects were on the whole evil, 
not so much from what it encouraged worldly men to do, as from 
its tendency to satisfy those who might have come out into full 
Christian experience with an intellectual faith and partial Christian 
privileges. It made a half-way house between the world and full 
Christian discipleship, where there should be none, and hence de- 
served the nickname given by its opponents, the Half-Way Cove- 
nant. It can scarcely be doubted that it would have been better 
for the New England churches had they either received all repu- 
table persons to baptism and the Lord’s Supper, or rejected all 
from any membership in the church who could not give evidence 
of personal Christian character. But the twofold theory of en- 
trance into the church prevented the adoption of either method of 
dealing with the second generation on New England soil, and that 
inconsistent theory was the real source of the Half-Way Covenant. 

The position formulated in 1657 and 1662 was reached only 
after a long discussion and by a gradual development of public 
thought. It was no part of the plan of the founders of New Eng- 
land at their coming. The class which was to make it seem need- 
ful was yet in childhood. Leading theologians, like Hooker, 
Cotton, Davenport, and Richard Mather, asserted that none but 
children of “visible saints” should be baptized,’ and while they 
declared at the same time that the children of such saints were 
church members, the consequences of such membership by birth 
had not become apparent. 

But it was not long before cases arose in which this strictness 
seemed to involve undue severity. In 1634 a godly grandfather, 
a member apparently of the Dorchester church, whose son or 
daughter could claim no regenerative work of God, desired bap- 
tism for his grandchild, since baptism was the outward witness to 





1 See the remarks of Leonard Bacon, Dzscourse, in Cont. Eccles. Hist. Conn., New Haven, 
1861, pp. 20-22; and D. T. Fiske, Cont. Eccles. Hist. Essex Co., Mass., Boston, 1865, pp. 279, 280. 

2 For Hooker’s views see e. g. Survey, Pt. 3, pp. 9-27; Cotton, Way of the Churches, p. 81: 
‘Infants cannot claime right unto Baptisme, but in the right of one of their parents, or both: 
where zezther of the Parents can claime right to the Lords Supper, there their 72/ant¢s cannot 
claime right to Baptisme.’? Davenport, Answer of the Elders . . . unto Nine Positions, pp. 
61-71. R. Mather, Church-Government (Ans. to 5-7 of XXXII Quest.), pp. 20-23. 


BAPTISM OF GRANDCHILDREN 251 


that interest in the covenant which children of visible saints were 
held to possess by birth. The advice of the Boston church was 
sought, and there the matter was publicly debated, with a result 
favorable to the grandfather’s request. The teacher, Cotton, and 
the two ruling elders, Oliver and Leverett, wrote << the Dorchester 
church as follows:’ 


‘Though the Child be unclean where both the Parents are Pagans and Infidels, 
yet we may not account such Parents for Pagans and Infidels, who are themselves 
baptized, and profess their belief of the Fundimental Articles of the Christian 
faith, and live without notorious Scandalous Crime, though they give not clear evi- 
dence of their regenerate estate, nor are convinced of the necessity of Church Cove- 
nant. . . . We do therefore profess it to be the judgement of our | Boston] 
Church . . . that the Grand-Father a member of the Church, may claim the 
privilege of Baptisme to his Grand-Child, though his next Seed the Parents of the 


9 


Child be not received themselves into Church Covenant. 


This was indeed a modification of the original New England 
theory, and was disapproved in principle by Hooker and Richard 
Mather* within the next few years. But it will cause no surprise 
to learn that, holding such views in 1634, Cotton felt able, before 
his death in 1652, to say of the offspring of church members: * 


‘Though they be not fit to make such profession of visible faith, as to admit 
them to the Lords Table, yet they may make profession full enough to receive them 
to Baptisme, or to the same estate /shmae/ stood in after Circumcision.” 

The same feeling of the necessity of an enlargement of the 
terms of baptism which characterized Cotton was soon shared by 
other New England ministers. By 1642, Thomas Allen of Charles- 
town argued in favor of the extension of the rite to the children 
of godly parents not yet gathered into church fellowship.* Within 
a year or two thereafter George Phillips of Watertown expressed 
in the most positive language the abiding church membership not 
only of the immediate offspring of visible saints, but of all de- 





1 The letter, dated Dec. 16, 1634, is preserved in Increase Mather’s First Principles of New 
England, Cambridge, 1675, pp. 2-4. The absence of the signature of the Boston pastor, Wilson, is 
explained by his presence at the time in England. 

2 [bid., pp. 3, 4. The permission was coupled with the conditions that the grandfather un- 
dertake the education of the child, and that the parents make this no occasion for neglect. 

3 See p. 250, note 2. 

4 First Principles, p.6. The letter is without date. Other examples of Cotton’s views will 
be found in the preface to the Profosztions of 1662, on a later page. 

5 Teacher at Charlestown 1639-1651. The passage is found in a letter to Cotton quoted in 
Pelt; Zccles. Hist iN. 2. ls 480, 


252 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


scended from them; and though he does not speak in the passage 
of their claim to baptism, his words leave little doubt as to what 
his attitude would have been.’ In 1645 Richard Mather of Dor- 
chester wrote as follows,’ replying to the question: 


‘“ When those that were baptized in Infancy by the Covenant of their Parents 
being come to Age, are not yet found fit to be received to the Lords Table, although 
they be married and have Children, whether are those their Children to be baptized 
or no;”—‘‘I propound to Consideration this Reason for the 4 firmative, viz. That 
the Children of such Parents ought to be baptized: the Reason is, the Parents as 
they were born in the Covenant, so they still continue therein, being neither cast out, 
nor deserving so to be, and if so, why should not their Children be baptized, for if 
the Parents be in Covenant, are not the Children so likewise? . . . If it besaid the 
Parents are not Confirmed meméers, nor have yet been found fit for the Lords Table, 
I conceive this needs not to hinder their Infants from Baptisme so long as they, 
I mean the Parents do neither renounce the Covenant, nor doth the Church see just 
Cause to Cast them out from the same.” | 


In view of the declarations just cited, it is no wonder that the 
Massachusetts General Court, in its call for the Synod of 1646-8, 
was moved to say that in regard to “baptisme, & y* p’sons to be 
received thereto,” “y* apphensions of many p’sons in y*® country 


are knowne not a little to differ;” and that, though the majority 
of churches baptized only the offspring of visibie saints, there 
were some who were much inclined to extend the application of 
the rite “as thinking more liberty and latitude in this point ought 
to be yielded then hath hitherto bene done.’’® 

These views were by no means confined to Massachusetts. 
Henry Smith of Wethersfield, Conn., wrote to Richard Mather, 


under date of August 23, 1647:* 


‘“We are at a Loss in our parts about members Children, being received into 
Communion, because it is undetermined, in the extent of it, at the Synod,*® our 
thoughts here are that the promise made to the Seed of Confederates, Ger. ry 
takes in all Children of Confederating Parents.” 


’ 


Samuel Stone, the teacher of the Hartford church, sympa- 





1 Pastor at Watertown 1630 to his death, July, 1644. His views are expressed in A Reply to 
a Confutation of some Grounds for Infant Baptism ; as also, Concerning the form of a Church, 
put forth against me by one T. Lamb, London, 1645. Quotations were made in the Preface to 
the Propositions of 1662, p. x. See later page of this work. 

2 In a manuscript entitled A plea for the Churches of Christ in New-England, quoted b* 
Increase Mather, First Principles, pp. 10, 11. 

3 For the whole of this valuable statement, see ate, pp. 168-171. 

* Pastor at Wethersfield 1641-1648. His letter is in I. Mather, Avx-st Principles, p. 24. 

5 The Cambridge Synod was still in being, having just adjourned for the second time. 


.DEVELOPMENT OF HALF-WAY VIEWS 253 


thized with his Wethersfield neighbor,* and John Warham of 
Windsor, was of the same mind.’ 

Nor was Plymouth colony without its share of advocates for 
the larger practice. Ralph Partridge of Duxbury, one of the 
three ministers appointed to draw up a platform for the consider- 
ation of the Cambridge Synod,* inserted the following statement 
in the form which he laid before that body in 1648:* 


‘“The persons unto whom the Sacrament of Baptisme is dispensed (and as we 
conceive ought to be) are such as being Of years, and converted from their Sins to the 
Faith of Jesus Christ, do joyn in Communion and Fellowship with a particular visi- 
ble Church, as also the children of such Parents or Parent, as having laid hold of the 
Covenant of grace (in the judgement of Charity) are in a wis¢ble Covenantz, with his 
Church and all their Seed after them that cast not off the Covenant of God by some 
Scandalous and obstinate going on in Sin.” 


A similar position was advocated by Richard Mather in the 
form of the Platform presented by him.* ‘These views were cham- 
pioned in the Synod by some influential members, and had the 
support of a majority; but were omitted from the final draft of 
the Platform owing to the opposition of a few led, it would seem, 
by Rey. Charles Chauncy.® 

It must have been plain by 1650 in what direction the tide was 
running, and it could not be long before some church would begin 
to practice what so many eminent divines approved. Commenda- 
tions of the larger view continued. The saintly Thomas Shepard 
of Cambridge declared himself in its favor just before his death 


in 1649." By that time, Cotton was willing even to baptize adopt- 


1 Letter to R. Mather, June 6, 1650, A%rst Principles, p. 9, in which he affirms ‘that 
Children of Church members have right to Church membership by virtue of their Fathers 
Covenant . . . . Hence, 1. If they be presented to a Church, and Claim their Interest, they 
cannot be denyed,’’ and speaks as if he had long been of this mind. 

2 Jb¢d., Warham changed his mind later on this question. As early as 1630, he told Fuller 
of Plymouth, that the visible ‘‘church may consist of a mixed people, godly and openly un- 
godly."’ He favored the Half-Way Covenant, and introduced its use into his own church in Jan- 
uary, 1658. In March, 1665, he announced that he had been convinced that he was in error, and 
the practice was abandoned by the church till 1668. See zr Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., W11:74; 
Walker, Hist. First Ch., Hartford, pp. 189, 190. 

3 See ante, p. 175. 

4 First Principles, p. 23. 

5 See ante, p. 224, for Mather’s own words. 

6 See ante, p. 181, and Preface to Propositions of 1662, p. xii fost. Cotton Mather says 
that John Norton was one of the supporters of the larger view in the Synod, but ‘“‘ the fierce oppo- 
sitions of one eminent person caused him that was of a Jeaceadle temper to forbear urging them 
any further.” Magunadia, ed. 1853-5, I : 201. 

7 Preface to Propositions of 1662, on later page; First Principles, p. 22. 


254 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


ed children of church members, provided their parents had been 
religiously inclined, and John Eliot’ and probably Richard Mather 
were of the same opinion.” The year 1650 saw Samuel Stone of 
Hartford fully committed to the Half-Way Covenant theory, 
anxious to have a new Synod called which might introduce uni- 
formity of practice, and confident that, unless some such meeting 
was held that very year and reason to the contrary given, the Con- 
necticut churches would begin the use of the new system.* In 
1651, Peter Prudden of Milford, second only to Davenport in 
ability among the ministers of New Haven colony, declared in 
a letter of peculiar force of argument his hearty support of the 
Half-Way Covenant position.* Thus, more than ten years before 
the Synod of 1662, there were warm advocates of the larger ap- 
plication of baptism among the chief religious leaders of each of 
the New England colonies, and the affirmation is within the 
bounds of probability that even then the weight of opinion among 
ministers in every colony, with the possible exception of New 
Haven, was on that side. But while this was true of the elders 
of the churches as a body, there was a considerable degree of op- 
position to the new theories among the brethren of the churches. 
Just how much it is impossible to say, but there is reason to 
believe that the pastors were more ready to welcome the larger 
practice than the churches.° The ministers were, on the whole, 
keenly alive to the danger of losing hold of a large class of the 
population; their pastoral labors lent weight to those practical 
arguments which had much to do in convincing men of the de- 
sirability of the Half-Way Covenant; while in almost every church 
enough sticklers for the old ways would be found to make any- 


thing like unanimous action difficult to obtain in abandoning what 





1 The Apostle to the Indians, teacher of the Roxbury church. 

2 First Principles, pp. 5, 6. 

3 Jéid., p. 9. ‘Letter of imeroaz0so: 

4 Preface to Propositions of 1662, pp. Xi, xii, on later page of this work ; a selection is given in 
First Principles, pp. 25, 26. 

5 Cotton Mather, Magnalia, ed. 1853-5, II: 311, 312, says, speaking of the state of affairs 
after 1662, ‘‘ Very gradual was the procedure of the churches to exercise that church-care of their 
children, which the synodical propositions had recommended ; for, though the pastors were generally 
principled for it, yet, in very many of the churches, a number of brethren were so stiffly and fiercely 
set the other way, that the pastors did forbear to extend their practice unto the length of their 
judgment.’? This must have been as true of the decade before 1662. 


MWetlLlLUDEOOFPLHE CHURCHES 255 


some deemed the safeguards of church purity. This fact accounts 
for the slowness with which the Half-Way Covenant practice was 
introduced into the churches, long after it had been largely ac- 
cepted by the ministers. 

In what church the agitation of this question as a practical 
issue was first commenced is hard to say. Certainly the matter 
was under discussion at Salem in 1652, and by 1654, if not earlier, 
had resulted in the acceptance of Half-Way Covenant principles. 
But though this adhesion to the new views was reaffirmed in 1661, 
the opposition of a few prevented the actual administration of 
baptism there till July, 1665." The church in Dorchester, of which 
that earnest advocate of the new methods, Richard Mather, was 
pastor, discussed the question in the opening weeks of 1655, and 
with the result that: 


‘“‘it came to vote & by divers was voted y' they were members & that haveinge 
children they should have y™ baptized if y™selves did take hold of their ffathers 
Covenant (but w' that takeing hold of Covenant is, was not Clerely agreed upon) 
albeit y™selves beinge examinyed were ffound neither fft ffor the Lords table nor 
voteing in the Church but this & other thinges seemed strange and unsaffe unto 
Divers in Conclusi6 soe it was 4 Lres were sent to the churches of Boston, Rox- 
bury, Dedham & Braintree to intimate unto y™ wt was by us intended if in the 
space of a month or 6 weekes we did not heare Reasons from y™ against or yt it 
would be offensive now y® 11, (1) 54? there came 3 Lres one fro Boston Dedham 
& Roxbury in all w°" after kind and Religious salutations we find . . . Boston 
desires Rather our fforbearance & declares ther 2 votes upo wt we had done Dedham 
sees not Light to goe so farre as we & Roxbury though divers of y™ ffeare it might 
maketh . . . *+& bring in time the Corruption of old England w* we ffled ffrom 
yet have voted that they see noe cause to diswade us.” 


Thus dissuaded on the whole, the matter continued one of 
debate for years at Dorchester,’ and it was not till January 29, 
1677, when Richard Mather had been more than seven years in 


1 Church records in White, V. Z£. Congregationalism, pp. 49, 50, 60, 61; Hirst Princt- 
ples, P. 27. 

2 Records First Ch. at Dorchester, Boston, 1891, pp. 164, 165. 

3 7.e., March 11, 1655. 

4 Illegible. 

5 See Dorch, Records, pp. 35, 36, 69-75. An illustration of the diversity of feeling at Dor- 
chester is the exclamation of the writer in the church book: ‘‘27 7 57. . . same daye Martha 
minott p’sented by her ffather—though he was noe memb accordinge to our church order: but a 
Corruptid Creepinge in as an harbenger to old england practice viz. to make all members ; (wh god 
p'vent in mercye.”’ J/é7¢d., p. 168. It does not appear that the child was baptized till 1665, after 
her mother had been admitted to full communion (p. 174); but one can sympathize with the death- 
bed lament of Richard Mather over his ill-success in introducing the Half-Way practice, 


256 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


his grave, that the Dorchester church adopted the Half-Way 
practice.’ 

But other churches were meanwhile debating the subject 
also. A letter of Rev. Nathaniel Rogers, written from Ipswich, 
in January, 1653, declared of his church:’ ; 


‘* We are this week to meet in the Church about it, and I know nothing but 
we must speedily fall to practice. If we in this shall be Leaders, I pray beg wis- 
dom from the Father of Lights.” 

But the discussions of that week dragged on, and it was not till 
1656, when Thomas Cobbett was preaching in Rogers’s room, that 
the Ipswich church became in truth the leader in the new prac- 
tice. Its vote, which would seem to be the first actual adoption 
of the full system as the rule of a New England church, is in part 
as follows:? 


ee 


1. We look at children of members in full communion, which were about 
[i. e., not more than] fourteen years old when their father and mother joined the 
Church, or have been born since, to be members in and with their parents. 

4. We look upon it as the Elder’s duty to call upon such children, being 
adults, and are of understanding, and not scandalous, to take the covenant sol- 
emnly before our Assembly. 5. We judge that the children of such adult persons, 
that are of understanding, and not scandalous, and shall take the Covenant, shall 
be baptized. 6. That notwithstanding the baptizing the children of such, yet we 
judge that these adult persons are not to come to the Lord’s Supper, nor to act in 
Church votes, unless they satisfy the reasonable charity of the Elders or Church, 
that they have a work of faith and repentance in them.” 4 


Naturally this debate was not confined to Massachusetts. 
The questions raised were of interest to the churches throughout 
New England, and nowhere more than in Connecticut, where Half- 
Way Covenant views had been advocated by Stone and Warham 
and Smith. It so happened, also, that from 1653 to 1659 one of 
the bitterest quarrels in New England ecclesiastical history raged 
at Hartford, and spite of the efforts of the ministers and legisla- 
ture of Connecticut and the advice of elders from other colonies, 
caused the secession of a considerable body from the Hartford 


— 





1 Jé¢d., pp, 69-75, vote of **e9 11 76.” 

2 The letter is dated 18. 11, 1652, 2. ¢., Jan. 18, 1653. First Principles, pp. 23, 24. 

§ Ipswich Ch. Rec. in Felt, Eccles. Hist. N. £., 11: 141. 

4 Notice that voting is not a Half-Way Covenant privilege. This reservation is made equally 
clearly in the Decisions of 1657 and 1662. The statement of Prof. Johnston (Connecticut, p. 227) 
that the Half-Way system ‘‘ gave every baptized person a voice in church government ”’ is baseless. 


THE QUESTION IN CONNECTICUT 307 


church and the settlement of Hadley, Mass.*. This quarrel has not 
infrequently been represented as the beginning of the Half-Way 
Covenant controversy in New England. No opinion is more erro- 
neous. At a later period, from about 1666 to 1670, the question 
of baptism tore the Hartford flock, and at the latter date resulted 
in its division for the second time and the formation of the present 
Second Church in Hartford; but in the first division baptism was 
no factor. A quarrel between Samuel Stone, the teacher, and Wil- 
liam Goodwin, the ruling elder, in regard to the choice of a suc- 
cessor to the pastorate made vacant by the death of Thomas 
Hooker, involved the whole church, and while essentially a per- 
sonal dispute, raised some interesting questions as to the relations 
of the officers and brethren in a Congregational church. But 
while there is no evidence that the extent of baptism was one of 
the dividing issues between 1653 and 1659 in the Hartford church, 
this condition of turmoil existing in the leading church in the 
colony very probably led to a considerable discussion of all ques- 
tions affecting church procedure throughout the httle common- 
wealth. It was rather as the consequence of this general agitation 
than of the special problems at Hartford that a petition was pre- 
sented to the Connecticut General Court, at its session May 15, 
1656, by persons whose names have not been preserved, but desir- 
ous, it would seem, of some enlargement of the terms of baptism. 
The form of the petition is unknown to us, but the Court voted 
that :? 


‘* Mr. Governot [John Webster], Mr. Deputy [Thomas Welles], Mr. [John] Cul- 
lick & Mr. Tailcoat [John Talcott] are desired in some convenient time to advise wt! 
the elders of this Jurisdiction about those things y* are p"sented to this Courte as 
grevances to severall persons amongst vs; (and if they judge it nessisary,) to crave 
their healpe & assistance in drawing up an abstract from the heads of those things, to 
be p’sented to the Gen: Courtes of the severall vnited Collonyes, and to desire an an- 
swer thereunto as sone as conveniently may be.” ? 


The work appointed to this committee was duly performed. 





1 The story of this quarrel was told for the first time with fullness by G. L. Walker, Hzstory of 
the First Church in Hartford, pp. 146-175. 

2 Conn. Records, 1: 281. 

8 How little this dispute was connected with the quarrel of 1653-9 in the Hartford church is 
illustrated by the fact that Webster and Cullick were among the most prominent of Stone’s 
Opponents, 


258 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


A list of questions was drawn up’ and sent to the General Court 
of Massachusetts during the summer of 1656. Whether the other 
colonies were also consulted, as the vote directed, it is perhaps 
impossible to say.” Thus overtured, the Massachusetts Court took 


prompt action at its session October 14, 1656, as follows: * 


‘*A letter fronm the Generall Court of Conecticot was presented to this Court, 
(together w' seuerall quzestions of practicall concernment in the churches,) wherein 
they propound theire desires of our concurranc w'" them in desiring the help of the 
elders, for the resolution and clearing the sajd quzestions, and for that end that a tjme 
and place of meeting be assigned by this Court, and notice thereof may be given to 
the rest of the colonjes, that they may haue the op’tunitje to contribute theire asistance 
to this worke. The Court, considering the premises, doth order, that M* Mather,* 
Mr Allyn,> Mt Norton,® Mt Thatcher,’ of the county of Suffolke, M' Bulkely,® if he 
cann come, M' Chauncey,’ Mt Syms,'? Mt Sherman,!! M' Michells,! of the county of 
Midlesex, M* Norrice,!? M" Ezekiell Rogers,'* Mt Whiting, !® M* Cobbet,!® of y® county 
of Essex, be desired to meet at Boston the first fifth day of June’? next following, to 
conferr and debate the sajd quzestions, or any other of like nature that shall or maybe 
propounded to them by this Court, either amongst themselves or w‘" such divines as 
shallbe sent to the sajd meeting from the other colonjes; and it is expected that the 
resolution of the sajd queestions, together wt» the grounds & reasons thereof, be pre- 
sented to the Generall Court, to be comunicated and comended to such of ours that 
want information therein ; and it is heereby ordered, that Robert Turner!® take care to 
provide convenjent entertaynement for the sajd gent" during theire attendance on the 
sajd meeting, and that the charges of those of this jurisdiccon be defrajed by the 
Tresurer ; and it is further ordered, that, together w"" the letter & quzerjes from Con- 
ecticott, a coppy of this order be sent to all the confcederated colonjes, w'* a letter 
from this Court desiring theire assistance in this buisnes at the time & place afore- 
sajd, yt the secretary send a copy hereof, w‘® the quzerjes, to one of the elders of each 
county.” 


Pursuant to this order the secretary, Edward Rawson, sent out 
the letters to the various colonial governments on October 22, 





1 These were doubtless substantially the X XI Questions answered by the Assembly at Boston 
in 1657. The list given by Trumbull, 7st. Conz., 1: 302, 303, is an error. It really belongs in 
1666. See Conn. Records, I1: 54, 55. 

2 The letter of the New Haven Court in reply to that of the Massachusetts body, February, 
1657, seems to imply that they had not been directly consulted by Connecticut. 

9 Records ¢ \.., Massmecveuicedto 1V: x: 280, 

4 Richard Mather, Dorchester: all the names are those of ministers. 

5 John Allin, Dedham. 8 John Norton, Boston. 7 Thomas Thacher, Weymouth. 

8 Peter Bulkeley, Concord; nearly 74 years old. 

® Charles Chauncy, Pres. Haryard Coll. 1654-1672. 10 Zechariah Symmes, Charlestown. 

11 John Sherman, Watertown. 12 Jonathan Mitchell, Cambridge. 

13 Edward Norris, Salem. 14 Of Rowley. 

15 Samuel Whiting, Lynn. 16 Thomas Cobbett, Ipswich. 

17 Z, 2,, June 4, 1657. 

18 Robert Turner was one of the licensed innkeepers of Boston. See Mass. Records, passim. 


CALL OF THE ASSEMBLY OF 1557 259 


1656." That to New Haven was thirty-six days on its way.” Their 
reception by the three lesser colonies was various. Plymouth 
appears to have taken no action. Connecticut of course responded 
favorably, the Massachusetts Court had carried into effect the 
Connecticut request, and on February 26, 1657, the Court of Con- 
necticut voted:’ 


‘*This Court doth order that Mr. Warham,* Mr. Stone,* Mr. Blinman® & Mr. 
Russell’? bee desired to meet, the first fifth day of June next, at Boston, to conferre & 
debate the questions formerly sent to the Bay Court, or any other of the like nature 
that shall bee p"pounded to them by that Court or by o" owne, w'® such divines as 
shall bee sent to the said meeting from the other Collonies; and that they make a returne 
to the Gen: Court of the issue of their consultations.” 


At the same time a proposition to send twelve questions in 
addition, the nature of which it is now impossible to determine, 
was defeated.* With regard to provision for the expenses of their 
representatives the Court of Connecticut was no less careful than 
that of Massachusetts : ° 


‘Tt is also ordered, that the Deputies, wt® the Deacons of the Church in each 
towne, take care that their said Eld"® bee comely & honorably attended & suited w® 
necessaries in their journey to the Bay and home againe ; and that the same, w'® their 
p"portion of charge in the Bay, during their abode there vpon this seruice, bee dis- 
charged by the Treasurer; and also the Deputies are impowered to ies horses (if 
need bee,) for the end aforesaid.” 


And, not content with providing for the material wants of 
the Assembly, the Court ordered that Wednesday, March 25th, 
should : *° 


‘“bee obserued & kept a day of publicke humilliation, by all the Plantations in this 
[Connecticut] Jurisdiction, to seeke the presence, guidance & direction of the Lord in 
reference to the Synnod.” 


Two days before the Court of Connecticut had given its favor- 
able response to the overtures from Massachusetts, the legislative 
body of New Haven colony had considered the same proposition 
and come to exactly opposite conclusions. In that colony the 
influence of John Davenport, the pastor of the New Haven church, 
was dominant and was set counter to the Half-Way Covenant 





1 New Haven Records, 11: 196. 2 [bzd. 

8 Conn. Records, 1: 288. 4 John Warham, Windsor ; all were ministers. 
6 Samuel Stone, Hartford. 6 Richard Blinman, New London, 

7 John Russell, Wethersfield. 8 Conn. Records, 1: 288. 


9 Tbid., p. 289. 10° 767di,° Pe 20a 


260 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT . 


theories. It was natural, therefore, that when the letter from 
Massachusetts was read to the Court at New Haven on February 
24,1657,’ and “the help of such elders as were present” was taken, 
that colony should refuse to have part in the proposed Assembly. 
Their declinature was set forth in a long letter signed by their 
governor, Theophilus Eaton, and addressed to the Massachusetts 
Court.2. They breathe not a little jealousy of their Connecticut 
neighbors, and hold that the Connecticut Court in dealing with its 
petitioners should have imitated the good example of Massachu- 
setts as illustrated in the summary treatment of Child and his 
associates in 1646. They are fearful that a synod may bring in 
results of which they could not approve, but which they would find 
it hard to resist.2. They are especially suspicious of the motives of 
the Connecticut petitioners, who, they tell the Massachusetts 
Court, they >* 


‘‘heare . . . are very confident they shall obteyne great alterations, both in 
ciuill gouernm' and in church discipline, and that some of them haue procured or 
hyred one as their agent to maintayne in writing, (as is conceived) that parishes in 
England, consenting to and continewing their meetings to worship God, are true 
churches, and such persons comeing ouer hether, (wthout holding forth any worke 
of faith, &c.,) haue right to all church priveledges.” 


For their own part the New Haven representatives counsel a 
firm adherence to the old ways. They:° 
‘“ hope the generall courts, who haue framed their ciuill polity and lawes according 
to the rules of Gods most holy word, and the elders and churches who haue gathered 


and received their discipline out of the same holy scriptures, will vnanimously im- 
prove their power and indeavours to preserue the same invyolably.” 


And finally they plead the recent removal or death of a number 
of their ministers as an excuse for non-representation in the Assem- 


bly, a representation which, it is easy to see, they were anxious to 





1 New Haven Records, 11: 195; the date is given in the old style as ‘‘ 24th r2th mo, 1656.” 

2 7b7d., 196-198. Dated Feb. 25, 1656 [7]. 

3 ** Though they [i. e. the N. H. Court] approved y°r readines to afford help when the case 
requires it, yet themselues conceive that the elders of Connecticote colony, wth due assistance from 
their court, had bine fully sufficient to cleare and maintayne the truth and to suppress the boldness 
of such petition’s, (according toa good president you gaue y® colony, some yeares since, in a case 
not much differring,) wthout calling a synod, or any such meeting, weh in such times may prove 
dangerous to y® puritie and peace of these churches and colonies.’’ For the case of Child see aztze, 


pp. 164-181. 
4 Tbid. DELDE as, LOT 


MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY, 1657 261 


avoid. In order, however, that there should be no mistake regard- 
ing their conservative position on the points at issue, they accom- 
panied their letter by a formal reply to the proposed Questions, 
drawn up by John Davenport, and bearing the approval of the 
Court,—a document designed for presentation to the Assembly, 
should it be held.’ 

The refusal of New Haven and the non-action of Plymouth 
had no effect on the meeting of the Ministerial Assembly.* Most 
of the thirteen ministers chosen by Massachusetts and the four 
representatives of Connecticut came together at Boston, June 4, 
1657, and their debates lasted till the 19th of the month.® Of 
the course of discussion and the events of the meeting we know 
nothing. The result could not have been unanimous, if Chauncy, 
later the champion of the conservative view, was present. But 
there was doubtless substantial agreement in the conclusions at 
which the assembly arrived. The membership of the children of 
church members was affirmed. That membership was declared 
to be personal and permanent, and sufficient to entitle the mem- 
ber by birth, even though not personally regenerate, to trans- 
mit membership and a right to baptism to his children, on con- 
dition of an express acknowledgment on his part of at least an 
intellectual faith and a desire to submit to all the covenant obli- 
gations implied in membership. Yet though this membership is 
complete, as far as it goes, it is not sufficient to admit to full 
communion or to a vote in church affairs. For these further 
privileges a profession of personal regeneration is necessary. 
The result was drawn up in the form of answers to each of the 
twenty-one questions,‘ written in a clear and often forcible style; 
and was from the pen of Richard Mather of Dorchester.’ 





1 Jézd., 108. 

2 This meeting, even in the action of the legislatures of the time, is loosely called a ** Synod.”’ 
It lacked however the essential element of representatives of the churches to make it a 
properly constituted synod. See Cambridge Platform, azfe, p. 234. 

8 The Result is thus dated. Regarding the attendance Nathanael Mather says: ‘‘ There 
being but about twenty called . . . and of those twenty, two or three met not with the rest.” 
Preface to Answer to X XJ Questions, on later page. 

4 Large extracts are given at the conclusion of this chapter. 

5 See Dexter, Congregationalism as seen; Bibl., p. 287. The result was never officially 
published. A copy was taken over to England, probably by Increase Mather, and published at 
London, 1659, with a preface by Nathanael Mather. 


262 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


The Assembly having fully accepted the Half-Way Covenant 
principles, its members went to their homes. Whether the con- 
clusions were presented to the Massachusetts Court, as directed 
in the call, it is impossible to say. No action regarding them is 
entered in the Records of that commonwealth. But in Connecti- 
cut their reception was noted as follows:* 


‘CA true coppy of the Counsells answere to seuerall questions sent to the Mas- 
sachusets from o' Generall Court, being p"sented to this Court, signed by the Reuer- 
end Mr. Sam: Stone, in the name of the rest of the Counsell, They doe order that 
coppies should goe forth to the seu'all Churches in this Collony as speedily, & if 
any exceptions bee against any thing therein, by any Church that shall haue the 
consideration thereof, the Court desires they would acquaint the next Gen : Court 
in Hartford, in Octo": that so suitable care may bee had for their solution & satis- 
faction.” 


Yet though the churches were thus urged and though the 
church at Windsor, if no other, began practicing the recommenda- 
tions of the Assembly on January 31, 1658,’ no “exceptions” are 
known to have been presented to the General Court. That this was 
the case was not due to any such degree of unanimity in favor of the 
newer views among the brethren of the churches of Connecti- 
cut as existed among the ministers. It is scarcely probable that 
other churches immediately followed the example of Windsor.’ 
Public attention in Connecticut was diverted from the baptismal 
question by the aggravated form which the dispute in the Hart- 
ford Church had assumed, and by the fact that the quarrel had 
provoked a similar personal disagreement between a portion of 
the Wethersfield church and its minister, John Russell.* This 
protracted controversy, in which baptism was not a prime fac- 
tor, issued in 1659 and 1660, in the removal of ex-Goy. John 
Webster, William Goodwin, the ruling elder of the Hartford church, 
Rev. John Russell, and other persons of prominence in the com- 
munity to Hadley, Mass. But though public attention was drawn 





1 Conn. Records, 1: 302, Aug. 12, 1657. 

* Church Records, in Stiles, History of Ancient Windsor, New York, 1859, p. 172. 

3 As late as 1666, John Davenport was able to affirm that, beside the churches in what had 
been New Haven colony and at Stratford and Norwalk, Farmington, ‘the sounder parte of Wind- 
sor,’’ and, he thinks, Norwich favored the old way. 3 Col/. Mass. Hist. Soc., X:60. The Half- 
Way Covenant was probably first used at Hartford soon after 1666. Trumbull, H7st. Cozz., 
I: 471, fell into the great error of holding that the system was not introduced into practice in 
Conn. till 1696. 

4 See Conn. Records, 1:319; Trumbull, Hist. Connz., 1: 309, 310. 


CONTINUED DIVISION OF FEELING 263 


aside for a time, the Half-Way Covenant views steadily won 
ground in Connecticut, and when the controversy reappeared the 
Opponents in the churches were clearly in the minority.’ 

In Massachusetts a similar division of sentiment, greater by 
far among the brethren than among the pastors of the churches, 
probably prevented any immediate action favorable to the Half- 
Way Covenant system from the General Court. Discussion con- 
tinued, and brought with it danger of serious division. The sit- 
uation was made more critical when the Restoration, in 1660, 
brought into power in England the party hostile to the New 
England church-way.” It seemed more than ever desirable that 
uniformity of practice should prevail; and the civil power, which 
had taken the initiative in securing the decisions of 1648 and 
1657, once more interfered. The Assembly of 1657 had been 
a mere meeting of at most a score of ministers. The General 
Court of Massachusetts determined to call a proper Synod, com- 
posed of all the ministers and the representatives of all the 
churches in the colony. Its action would not affect Connecticut, 
New Haven, or Plymouth, save by example, since these colonies 
were not asked to share in the Synod; but for Massachusetts 
it was hoped the action would be definitive. The prime matter 
to be settled was that problem of baptism which the Cambridge 
Synod of 1646-8 had evaded, and which the Assembly of 1657 
had answered so fully in the spirit of the Half-Way Covenant. 
Accordingly, on December 31, 1661, the Massachusetts Court is- 
sued this sharp and peremptory order: * 


‘* This Court, hauing taken into consideration that there are seuerall questions & 
doubts yet depending in the churches of this jurisdiction concerning seuerall prac- 
ticall poynts of church disciplyne, doe therefore order & hereby desire, that the 
churches aforesajd doe send theire messengers of elders & brethren to Boston the 
24 Twesday of the first moneth,* then & there to discusse & declare what they 


1 The year 1657 saw a curious limitation of the franchise in Connecticut, the causes of which 
are not very evident. (Conxx. Records, 1: 293: ‘‘ This Court doth order, that by admitted inhabi- 
tants, specified in the 7th Fundamentall [of the constitution of 1639], are meant only housholders 
that are one & twenty yeares of age, or haue bore office, or haue 30/7, estate.’’) But its connection 
with the Half-Way discussion, if any, is not apparent. See also Andrews, River Towns of Con- 
necticut, pp. 85-89. 

2 See Palfrey, Hist. N. E., 11: 490. 

SKecords, =~ ~« Mass: Bay, 1V32: 38. 

4 7,e., March 11, 1662. 


264 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


shall judge to be the minde of God, revealed in his word, concerning such ques- 
tions as shall be propounded to them by order of this Court referring to church 
orders as aforesajd, and that the seuerall churches take care to make due provition 
for the messengers by them sent. 

This Court doe further order, as a meete expedient for the furtheranc of 
th’ ends proposed in calling a synod to be kept by the messengers of all y° 
churches in this jurisdiction the 24 Twesday in March next, that the neighbor- 
ing elders, w'* as much convenient speed as may be, doe meete together & con- 
sider of such questions, besides what is here vnder proposed, as they shall judge 
necessary to be then & there discussed for the setling of peace & trueth in these 
churches of Christ, & make theire returne wt" as much convenient speede as may 
be to y" Gou’not or secretary, who is to speede away a copie thereof, w'® the Gen- 
erall Courts order, to the seuerall churches, requiring them to send theire messen- 
gers to attend the sajd meeting.” 


The hasty gathering of the ministers of Boston and the adja- 
cent towns, thus peremptorily summoned, met at once, and added 
to the problem of baptism, which the Court had in mind, a second 
question, regarding councils and the mutual relations of the 
churches, for the consideration of the Synod. The Court recorded 
the two subjects for discussion on the same page on which it min- 
uted the call for the deliberative body: ’ 

Quest I. Who are the subjects of baptisme. 
Queest 2. Whither, according to the word of God, there ought to be a consco- 


ciation of churches, & what should be y® manner of it. 
This last question was returned to y® secretary by y® elders. 


Thus issued by the civil authorities of the commonwealth, the 
call for the Synod went forth to the Massachusetts churches. Its 
reception in them as a whole may perhaps be judged from the 
records of the Salem church*?— 


‘*On the 26th of 12th month,’ being the Sabbath day, was read an order from the 
Gen. Court, for calling of a Synod, this Church (as the rest of the Churches in the 
Colony) being desired to send their messengers of Elders and brethren to Boston on 
the roth of the 1st month* [etc]. . . . It was left unto consideration till the 





1 /é/d, This paragraph immediately follows the call quoted above, though of course a day 
or two must have intervened between the two votes to allow for a meeting of the ministers of the 
Boston vicinage, which the second vote implies had already taken place. The explanation is in 
the fact that the arrangement of the records of business at any particular meeting of the Court was 
seldom strictly chronological. See the editor’s remarks in the prefaces to various volumes of the 
Records. 

2 White, V. £. Congregationalism, p. 53. 

3 This date is an error. It should be Jan. 26, 1662, a Sunday; Feb. 26, as here given, was 
Wednesday. 

4 The day mentioned in the call falls on March 11 and not the roth. 


MEETING OF THE SYNOD, 1662 265 


Lord’s day following, when Major Hawthorne, Mr. Bartholmew, and the Pastor! 
were chosen to go to the Synod at the time appointed.” 


The second Tuesday in March, 1662, saw, therefore, the com- 
ing together in the meeting-house of the First Church? in Boston 
of more than seventy representatives* of the Massachusetts 
churches. We know nothing in detail of the organization of the 
body, nor are we able to identify more than a few of those who 
were probably present as actually there.* It has been said, but 
the statement lacks positive proof, that the presiding officer at the 
sessions was Samuel Whiting, the venerable pastor at Lynn*’—a 
man in every way fitted for the task. In the ranks of the minis- 
terial membership were such lights of the New England pulpit as 
John Wilson® and John Norton’ of the First Boston Church, Richard 
Mather® of Dorchester, with his sons Eleazer® of Northampton, and 
Increase,”® just beginning his ministry in the Second Church of Bos- 
ton. John Allin* of Dedham was there, and Zechariah Symmes” of 
Charlestown; Salem sent John Higginson,’* Newbury the Presby- 
terianly inclined Thomas Parker.’* From Cambridge came the 
venerable Charles Chauncy,’*® president of Harvard College; and 
the young, gifted Jonathan Mitchell,” pastor of the Cambridge 
church; with them, also, was John Mayo,*’ of the Second Boston 


1 About this proportion of two representatives of the brethren to each minister must have 
been general, since all the ministers then in regular service in the colony numbered only 34, of 
whom, judging from the usual history of Synods, some must have been absent, and the total attend- 
ance was ‘‘above seventy.”’ 

2 Dexter, in Cong. Quart., IV: 274. 

3 Jézd., from Mitchell, Axswer [to I. Mather] Afologetical Preface, p. 3. 

4 A list, nearly complete, of those who would be entitled to a place in the Synod as ministers 
is given by Dexter, Cong. Quart., 1V: 274. 

5 Dexter, /6z7d. Drake, History of Boston, Boston, 1852-6, 1: 361. His biography is in the 
Magnalia, ed. 1853-5, 1: 501-511. Perhaps a hint of this is contained in Thompson’s elegiac 


verses on Whiting, /é7d., 
“*Profoundest judgement, with a meekness rare, 


Preferr’d him to the Moderator’s chair,”’ etc. 

© Records . . . Mass. Bay, lV: 2: 60. 

7 Dexter, Cong. Quart., IV: 274, omits Norton from his list of those possibly present. He 
returned from England, however, in time to take an active part in the closing session. See Letter 
of Increase Mather to John Davenport, in Hutchinson, Wrst. Mass. Bay, ed. 1765, [: 224. 

8 Records . . . Mass. Bay, Ibid. ; Records First Ch. Dorchester, p 39. 

8 Hutchinson, /dzd. 

10 Increase Mather was a delegate from his father’s church at Dorchester, Kecords, etc., p. 39 


11 Rec. Mass. Bay, Ibid. 12 Jézd. 

1S White, JV. £. Cong.; p. 53. 14 Hutchinson, /dzd. 
15 Jia. Doubtless as a representative of the Cambridge church. 

16 Mather, Magnadia, ed. 1853-5, II: 99. 17 Hutchinson, /dzd. 


18 


266 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


church. The gathering included many from the rapidly thinning 
ranks of the first generation on New England soil; it numbered 
also the brilliant names which adorn the story of their children. 
And as the result of the Synod was but the working out of princi- 
ples inherent in the Congregationalism of the founders of New 
England, so the votes by which it was adopted came in no small 
measure from those who were among the pioneers in the settle- 
ment of our towns and churches. 

Of all who were present, those most conspicuous in debate 
were Jonathan Mitchell’ on the side favoring the Half-Way Cove- 
nant; and, probably, Pres. Chauncy* among its opponents. ‘To the 
persuasive skill of Mitchell, more than to any other, the result in 
1662 was due, and the form in which it was cast was largely the 
product of his pen.* 

The Synod which assembled in March, 1662, found that it had 
a severe task. At least eight or nine of the seventy present,* and 
probably even more at the early sessions,® opposed any admission 
of Half-Way principles. This opposition included a man of great 
prominence, Pres. Chauncy, and the two ministers of the Second 
Church in Boston, Mayo and Increase Mather,® the latter joined 
by his brother Eleazer of Northampton. They made a force 
formidable for quality if not for numbers. Thomas Parker of 
Newbury was a Presbyterian free-lance, though he had little fol- 





1 Jonathan Mitchell was born in England in 1624, graduated Harvard College 1647, settled at 
Cambridge 1650, died July 9, 1668. Of brilliant powers of mind, marked piety, and kindly in spirit, 
he was one of the most prominent of the second generation of New England ministers. His biog- 
raphy is given by Mather, Maguadia, 11: 66-113. See also Sibley, Harvard Graduates, Cam- 
bridge, 1873, I: 141-157, where a full list of his writings and ample references to biographical sources 
will be found. 

2 Charles Chauncy was born in England in 1589, educated at Cambridge, settled at Ware, 
Eng., in 1627, suspended by Laud 1635, came to Plymouth, Mass., 1638, and soon settled at Scituate. 
In 1654 he became the second president of Harvard, an office which he retained till his death, Feb. 
19, 1672. For his biography see Mather, Magnzadia, I: 463-476; Allen, Az. Biog. Dict., ed. 1857, 
Pp. 213-215. 

3 Mather, MZagnadzia, I1: 99. 

4 Mitchell, A zswer to Increase Mather’s Afologetical Preface, p. 3. ‘We suppose there 
were not /7ve twice told that did in any thing Vote on the Negative.’’ Jézd. 

5 Chauncy says: ‘‘ Diverse of the Messengers [in this case the lay messengers] being no Lo- 
gitians, and so unable to answer Syllogismes, and discern Ambiguities, were over-born.’’ 4 ##¢7- 
Synodalia, p. 5. 

6 Increase Mather was of course not yet settled, though preaching at Boston. He sat for 
Dorchester. He later changed his views through the influence of Mitchell, and supported the re- 
sult of the Synod, which his father, Richard Mather, always approved. 


DEBATES IN THE SYNOD 267 


lowing ;* and others criticised various features of the existing 
usages of the churches.? So it came about that “the Synod con- 
tinuing together almost a fortnight, finding the questions to be 
weighty, and that divers of them could not then stay longer to- 
gether, they adjourned the Synod to the roth of the 4th month 
riexiae * 

The session thus suspended was resumed on June roth; but 
was once more adjourned, this time to September roth.* Soon 
after the close of the second session Eleazer Mather had written to 
John Davenport of New Haven,’ and that champion of the older 
method was stirred, either by Mather’s letter or the news of the 
Synod’s doings which came to him through other channels, to send 
on in writing his objections to the views of the: majority. This 
document, which, as emanating from a minister of another colony, 
had no pertinence in a Massachusetts Synod, Increase Mather 
attempted to read to the body on its reassembling in September. 
The opposition of John Norton of, Boston prevented, but a copy 
was put in circulation by Increase Mather and attracted consider- 
able attention.° 

It was, we may suppose, at the September session that the 
Propositions in which the Synod embodied its conclusions took on 
their final form. Their exact phraseology was the subject of much 
debate and was fixed by the Synod itself in each case." The most 
fiercely contested battle ground was the fifth Proposition, of which 
three draughts were submitted to the body.* Against this Chauncy 


1‘* Mr, Parker, of Newbury, was one of the great antagonists of the congregational way and 
order, though it not being the work of the present synod, his many motions, to consider whether we 
were in the right ecclesiastical order, were not attended.’’ E. Mather to J. Davenport, Hutchin- 
son, I: 224. 

2‘ There was scarce any of the congregational principles, but what were layen at, by some 
or other of the assembly; as relations of the work of grace, power of voting of the fraternity in ad- 
mission,’’ etc. Jézd. 

3 Salem Ch. Records, in White, V. Z. Congregationalism, p. 54. In each instance of ad- 
journment ‘‘ notice was given the [Salem] Church.”’ 

4 Jbtd. 

5 July 4, 1662, quoted by Hutchinson. 

6 Letter of I. Mather to J. Davenport, Oct. 21, 1662, quoted in Hutchinson, I: 224. 

7“ The Propositions . . . were (after much discussion and consideration from the Word 
of God) Voted and Concluded by the Assembly in the particular termes as they are here expressed.” 
Preface to Propositions of 1662, on later page. 

8 Chauncy said: ‘‘ There hath been three expressions of this proposition, and this [in the Re- 
sult] swerves further off from Scripture then both the former.” A xtz-Synodadia, p. 27. 


268 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


and his friends energetically labored, since it granted baptism to 
all children of persons themselves baptized who professed an in- 
tellectual faith, owned the covenant, and submitted to church dis- 
cipline. But it is with a little surprise that we learn that the third 
Proposition, declaring the membership by birth of the children of 
visible believers, was brought forward by one of the leaders of the 
minority, possibly Chauncy himself... No wonder that Mitchell 
could say of this proposition “some think [it] carries the whole 
cause ;”* and the championing of this view of the status of the 
children of church members, while their right to bring their off- 
spring to baptism was denied, is an illustration of the inconsistency 
of the position taken throughout the controversy by the opponents 
of the Half-Way Covenant, an inconsistency which gave them less 
weight than the general merits of their criticisms deserved. Having 
carefully formulated the Propositions regarding baptism, the Synod 
listened to several readings of the arguments by which they were 
supported, and voted their approbation.* 

The first of the two Questions propounded by the Court hav- 
ing thus been disposed of by a vote of more than seven to one* in 
favor of the Half-Way Covenant system, the Synod hastily® took 
up the second Question, that in relation to ‘ Consociation of 
Churches,” or, as modern usage would say, Fellowship between 
Churches. Here the Synod, wearied with its work, and deeming 
the query of comparatively minor importance, did little more than 
reaffirm by a vote lacking but one of unanimity,’ the principles laid 
down in the Cambridge Platform. 

Soon after the termination of the Synod,’ its conclusions were 
reported to the Massachusetts Court, October 8, 1662, by a com- 


mittee consisting of four ministers, John Wilson, Richard Mather, 





1** One of the chief of our Dissenting Brethren did propound, and earnestly promote the third 
Proposition,’’ Allin, A xzmadversions upon the Anti-Synodalia, p. 13. 

2 Mitchell, A xswer to Increase Mather’s Afologetical Preface, p. 3, margin. 

3 Preface to Propositions of 1662, on later page. 

4 Mather, Magnadia, ed. 1853-5, I1: 302. 

5 ** The Answer to the second Question is here given with great brevity . . . partly by 
reason of great straits of time,’’ Preface to Proposztious of 1662. 

6 ‘* There was a marvellous Unanimity ; not one Elder, nor so much as two Brethren in all 
that Reverend Assembly dissenting.’”’ Increase Mather, Disguzsition Concerning Ecclesiastical 
Councils, Boston, 1716, p. 37. Reprinted Cong. Quart., XII: 365. 

7 The day of adjournment is unknown. 


RECEPTION OF THE RESULT 209 


John Allin, and Zechariah Symmes.’ At the same time Increase 
Mather presented to the Court the objections formulated by John 
Davenport which the Synod had refused to hear. This he accom- 
panied by a preface signed by Chauncy, Mayo, Eleazer Mather, and 
himself, in the name of the opposition.” The objectors’ protest 
fared scarcely better than in the Synod; the utmost that the Court 
would grant was freedom from interference should the opponents 
see fit to print. As for the Propositions voted by the majority, on 
the other hand:’ 


‘*the Court, on their pervsall, judged it meete to coMend the same vnto the consider- 
ation of all the churches & people of this [Massachusetts] jurisdiction, and for that 
end ordered the printing thereof, the originall copie being left on file.” 

At the same time the Court advised that the committee should 
Beeco.it:* 

““that an epistle or p’face suiteable to the sajd worke be forthwith prepared, & sent to 
the presse, & that M* Mitchell doe take the ouersight of the same at the presse, for 
the p’venting of any errata’’.” 

The result was the publication of the Propositions by the press 
at Cambridge within a few weeks, while before the conclusion of 
the year an unofficial edition was brought out at London, having 
as an appendix the answer written by Chauncy and known as the 
Anti-Synodalia Scripta Americana. 

These publications started a flood of controversial pamphlets 
heretofore unexampled in the history of the new world, and which 
must have taxed the capacities of the Cambridge press, though 
they added little light to the controversy. Chauncy and Daven- 
port were promptly in the field urging that the new method would 
open the doors of the churches to the unworthy; and with them 
stood Increase Mather of Boston and Nicholas Street of New 
Haven. Mitchell, Allin, and Richard Mather were as forward to 
defend the result of the Synod;° and with more effect than is usual 





Beiecoras , . . dass. Bay, IN: "27 60. 

2 Letter to John Davenport, Hutchinson, Hzs¢t. . . . Mass. Bay, 1: 224. 

3 “Some of the court would fain have thrown them out [the objections] without reading, but 
the major part were not so violent. It was moved they might be printed. All the answer we could 
get, was, that we might doas we would. We count it a favour we were not commanded to be 
silent.” Jdzd. 

4 Records . . . Mass. Bay, IV: 2: 60. 

5 Tbzd., 62. 

6 For details of these pamphlets see azze, p. 239. 


2/79 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


in such controversies, for the arguments of Mitchell won over In- 
crease Mather,’ who became within less than ten years after the 
Synod the chief defender of its conclusions.” The Massachusetts 
Court left the question to the churches without further interfer- 
ence, and the Half-Way Covenant view, though the popular and 
growing theory, long met with disapproval among the brethren of 
many congregations.’ Fifty years after the Synod there were still 
opposing churches* in Massachusetts. 

The result of the Synod of 1662, being purely local in its appli- 
cation, called for no action on the part of the General Court of 
Connecticut. That colony had, at the moment, a most delicate 
question on its hands. The diplomatic ability of the younger 
Winthrop had secured from the recently restored Charles II. of 
England, in 1662, a charter not only granting practical local in- 
dependence but adding the colony of New Haven to the Connecti- 
cut jurisdiction, much against the will of the former. The situation 
was made the more difficult because New Haven, owing to the 
influence of Davenport, was as much opposed to the Half-Way 
Covenant as the authorities of Connecticut were in its favor. No 
action on the part of the General Court for or against the new 
system took place at once. 

But though the Connecticut Court took no immediate steps in 
favor of larger church privileges, the matter was agitated in the 
colony and with results that at last demanded the Court’s interfer- 
ence. When Norton had returned, during the closing days of the 
Synod, from his embassy to England,® he had brought with him a 

1 Magnatia, ed. 1853-5, 11: 310. 

2 Though not published till 1675, the Preface to Increase Mather’s First Principles is dated 
May 1, 1671. 

3 Magnalia, 11: 311, 312. Even so strong a favorer of the Half-Way Covenant as Richard 
Mather declared on his death-bed in 1669 to his son Increase: ‘A speciall thing which I would 
commend to you, is, Care concerning the Rising Generation in this Country, that they be brought 
under the Government of Christ in his Church ; and that when grown up and qualified, they have. 


Baptism for their Children. I must confess I have been defective as to practise, yet I have pub- 
lickly declared my judgement, and manifested my desires to practise that which I think ought to be 


attended, but the Dissenting of some in our Church discouraged me.’’ Increase Mather, Life and 
Deathof . . . Richard Mather, Cambridge, 1670, p. 27. 


4 Magnailia, I1: 313-315. The Boston First Church did not adopt the Half-Way Covenant 
practice till 1731, Emerson, 7st. Sketch af the First Ch., Boston, 1812, p. 175. 

5 John Norton and Simon Bradstreet had been sent by Mass, to England to propitiate the: 
restored monarchy. See Palfrey, Hist. NV. £., 11: 520-531. 


FURTHER AGITATION IN CONNECTICUT 2/1 


letter of Charles II. to the government of Massachusetts, direct- 
ing that all who so chose and were peaceable should have freedom 
to worship according to the Prayer Book; and in general, that:’ 
‘all persons of good and honest lives and conversations be admitted to the sacrament 
of the Lords supper, according to the said booke of common prayer, and their children 
to baptisme.” 

This letter had been received by the same Court which ap- 
proved the result of the Synod, October 8, 1662;* and compliance 
had been avoided by a temporizing policy;* but in July, 1664, 
royal commissioners,* charged with a general revision of the affairs 
of the colonies arrived. There was from the first no doubt that 
their views favored a much broader admission to church privileges 
than the Half-way Covenant contemplated;° and at a later period 
they secured the consent of the colony of Plymouth to concessions 
substantially in accord with the king’s letter to Massachusetts.” 
The known attitude of the English government and its commis- 
sioners doubtless increased the impatience in every colony of 
opponents of the strictness of early Congregationalism at the slow 
progress of the Half-Way Covenant practice, especially in view of 
the result of the Massachusetts Synod and the favor of many 
ministers, 

This impatience found expression in Connecticut in a peti- 
tion from William Pitkin’ of Hartford and six other men of respect- 
able position in the colony, presented to the General Court at its 
session in October, 1664, and setting forth much the same griev- 
ances that Child and his associates * had once preferred against the 
churches of Massachusetts. The petitioners declare that, though 
baptized members of the Church of England, they are refused com- 





1 Hutchinson, Collection, p. 379, dated June 28, 1662. 

2 Records . . . Mass. Bay, 1V: 2: 58. 

8 Jézd. ‘Concerning liberty to use the common Prayer Book, none as yet among us have 
appeared to desire it ; touching administration of the sacraments, this matter hath been under con- 
sideration of a synod, orderly called, the result whereof our last General Court commended to the 
several congregations, and we hope will have a tendency to general satisfaction.’’ Answer to the 
king, 2 Col. Mass. Hist. Soc., VIII: 48. 

4 For their doings see Palfrey, II: 578-634. 

5 7. e., admission of all respectable persons to the Lord’s Supper. 

6 Plymouth Records, \V: 85-87. February, 1665. 

7 Some facts regarding Pitkin, who was a man of piety, and the names of his fellow-signers 
may be found in G, L. Walker, Hist. First Church in Hartford, pp. 195, 196. 

8 See ante, p. 164. 


272 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


munion for themselves and baptism for their children, in contradic- 
tion of the king’s letter to Massachusetts, and they beg the Court 
to compel the ministers of the colony to grant them such ordi- 
nances as they desire, or to relieve them from the necessity of 
contributing to the support of any minister who should refuse.’ 

This petition evidently met with some approval in the Connec- 
ticut Court, and determined that body to take action which, while 
not granting all that the petitioners desired, favored a large inter- 
pretation of the Half-Way Covenant:? 


‘* This Court vnderstanding by a writing presented to them from seuerall persons 
of this Colony, that they are agrieved that they are not interteined in church fellow- 
ship; This Court haueing duely considered the same, desireing that the rules of 
Christ may be attended, doe commend it to the ministers and churches in this Colony 
to consider whither it be not their duty to enterteine all such persons, whoe are of 
honest and godly conuersation, haueing a competency of knowledg in the principles 
of religion, and shall desire to joyne w" them in church fellowship, by an explicitt 
couenant, and that they haue their children baptized, and that all the children of the 
church be accepted and acco“ reall members of the church, and that the church exer- 
cise a due christian care and watch ouer them; and that when they are growne up, 
being examined by the officer in the presence of the church, it appeares, in the judg- 
ment of charity, they are duely qualifyed to perticipate in that great ordinance of the 
Lords Supper, by theire being able to examine themselues and discerne the Lords 
body, such persons be admitted to full comunion. 

The Court desires y* the seuerall officers of y® respectiue churches, would be 
pleased to consider whither it be not the duty of the Court to order the churches to 
practice according to the premises, if they doe not practice w'out such an order. 

If any dissent from the contents of this writing they are desired to help the Court 
w*® such light as is w' them, the next Session of this Assembly. 

The Court orders the Secret"y to send a copy of this writing to the seuerall min- 
isters and churches in this Colony.” 


Such an order, in the somewhat divided state of.public opin- 
ion in regard to the Half-Way Covenant, could only produce fur- 
ther controversy and division. Adam Blakeman and Thomas 
Hanford, pastors of the churches of Stratford and Norwalk re- 
spectively, sent in to the Court a joint letter of earnest protest 
against the new way.* By June, 1666, the Hartford church was 
torn by contesting factions, of which the larger, led by the 


younger minister, Joseph Haynes, favored the larger practice; 


1 The full text is in Stiles, A nczent Windsor, ed. 1859, pp. 167, 168. 

2 Conn. Rec., 1: 437. Court of Oct. 13, 1664. 

3The MS. is in the possession of Dr. J. H. Trumbull. Extracts are given by G. L. Walken 
Hist. First Ch. Hartford, p. 198. 


CONNECTICUT, CHURCHES DIVIDED 273 


while a strong minority, championed by Haynes’s colleague, John 
Whiting, opposed.! In April of that year Abraham Pierson, the 
pastor of the church at Branford, with a majority of his flock, 
and some ‘persons from Guilford, New Haven, and Milford, made 
arrangements to leave the colony for Newark, New Jersey, an 
agreement which they carried into execution the year follow- 
ing. 
sion of non-church-members to the franchise, which was one of 


2 


To this step they were led in part by dislike to the admis- 


the consequences to New Haven colony of its absorption by Con- 
necticut; but hostility toward the Half-Way Covenant added 
strength to their desire to remove.* At about the same time the 
church in Stratford was torn by a quarrel regarding the allow- 
ance of the Half-Way principles which resulted eventually in the 
division of the church and the settlement of Woodbury.4 The 
Windsor church was in a chronic state of controversy, to which 
the question of baptism only added fuel.’° 

No wonder the General Court of Connecticut felt that it was 
time to bring these matters to a settlement, and therefore, at its 
session, October 11, 1666, it voted to call a “Synod” to meet at 
Hartford, May 15, 1667, to discuss seventeen questions pro- 
pounded by the Court “to an issue.”® 
fies oynod '’:” 


‘* This Court orders that all y® Preacheing Elders and Ministers that are or shalbe 
setled in this Colony at y*® time of y® meeting of the Synod shalbe sent to attend 
as members of y® Synod. This Court orders that Mr. Michil,® Mr. Browne,® Mr. 
Sherman !° and Mr. Glouer,!! shalbe desired as from this Court to assist as mem- 
bers of this Synod.” 


As to the composition of 





1 See /ézd., pp. 184-211. 

2 See T. P. Gillett, Wzst. Cong. Ch. . . . of Branford. A Semi-Centennial Discourse, 
New Haven, 1858, pp. 7-0. 

Seelt, Accles. Hist. N. £., 11: 412. 

4 See Cothren, Hist. Ancient Woodbury, Waterbury, 1854, pp. 113-134. The first dccu- 
ment in the dispute is of Jan., 1666. 

5 See Stiles, Wzst. Ancient Windsor, New York, 1859, pp. 163-193. 

8 Conn. Records, 11: 53-55. 

7 Tota, 

8 Jonathan Mitchell of Cambridge, Mass., one of the chief leaders in the Half-Way Cove- 
nant movement. All were ministers, distinguished for learning, and presumably favorable to the 
newer view. 

® Edmund Browne, Sudbury, Mass. 

10 John Sherman, Watertown, Mass. 

11 Pelatiah Glover, Springfield, Mass. 


274 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


The Court then declared that the body should proceed with 
the prescribed business: “ Provided that y* maior part of y* ‘Teache- 
ing Elders’ of y® Churches be present;’’? and that in the mean- 
time every minister in the colony should be provided with a copy 
of the questions, and all the churches be recommended to ab- 
stain from controversy pending the result of the “Synod.” 

The questions® thus sent forth cover a far greater range of 
topics than those communicated to the Massachusetts Court in 
1656. Those which head the list are substantially a repetition of 
the queries addressed by the Massachusetts legislature to the 
Synod of 1662, viz.: 


‘‘t, Whether federall holines or couent interest be not y® propper ground of 
Baptisme. 2. Whether Comunion of Ch*, as such, be not warrantable by the 
word of God.” 


But others bear directly on the questions raised by Pitkin 
and his friends, and show the dawnings of that system by which 
those who contributed to support of a minister, though not them- 
selves church members, claimed a voice in his election, —a sys- 
tem which has been so peculiar a feature of New England Con- 
gregationalism: * 


‘‘4. Whether ministeriall officers are not as truly bound to baptize the, visible 
disciples of X* providentially setled amongst them, as officially to preach the Word. 
5. Whether setled inhabitants of the Countrey, being members of other Churches, 
should haue their children baptized amongst vs w*out themselues first ord"ly ioyne- 
ing in Churches here. 9. Whether it doth not belong to y® body of a Towne col- 
lectiuely, taken joyntly, to call him to be their minister whom the Church shal choose 
to be their officer. 13. Whether the Church her invitation and election of an officer 
or preacheing Elder necessitates the whole Congregation to sit downe satisfied, as 
bound thereby to accept him as their Minister though invited and setled w*out ye 
Townes consent.” 


Here then were matters enough for a general discussion of 
a great part of what had heretofore been Congregational usage. 
It is easy to see that Connecticut was in a ferment, and that the 


1 7, é., ministers in relationship to particular Conn. churches— the Court drew no distinction 
between pastors and teachers. Its purpose was to secure a representation of a majority of the 
churches. 

2 Conn. Rec., Ibid. 

3 Text, /ézd., 54, 55. Trumbull, Wzst. Conz., 1: 302, 303, 457. He makes the mistake of at- 
tributing the same questions to 1656. 

4 An interesting account of the development of the parish system in Massachusetts is that 
of D. T. Fiske, Cont. Eccles. Hist. Essex County, pp. 262-269. 





THE PROPOSED e®9SYNOD,’ 1667 275 


process had begun which was to lead to the erection of an eccle- 
siastical constitution imposed by state authority at Saybrook in 
1708. Indeed, the main question which the Saybrook Platform 
was to attempt to answer was already asked in the thirteenth 
of this series of 1666: 

**Vnto whom shal such persons repaire that are grieued at any Church process 
or censure, or whether they must acquiesce in the Churches sentence vnto w‘' they 
doe belong.” 

But though of great importance, these questions never came 
to discussion in the way planned by the Court. Opposition to 
the proposed meeting manifested itself strongly. The stricter 
Congregationalists, doubtless, objected to the gathering as likely 
to impose the Half-Way Covenant upon them, and to its title 
of “Synod” as a misnomer for an assemblage of ministers only.’ 
At all events the Court, at its session May 9g, 1667, while reaffirm- 
ing the summons, changed the title of the meeting to “ Assem- 
bly.”? Thus softened in title the body met,* but before it could 
do any business except discuss whether its debates should be 
public or private, it adjourned to the following October. Pending 
the reassembly a shrewd move was made by the leaders of the 
opposition to the Half-Way Covenant,— Rev. Messrs. John Whit- 
ing of Hartford, John Warham of Windsor, and Samuel Hooker of 
Farmington,—a move which abruptly terminated the Assembly. 
The Commissioners of the United Colonies met at Hartford, Sep- 
tember 15, 1657,* and were induced to vote to:° 


‘*propound that wher any questian may or doth arise . . . that are of comon con- 
cernment whether in the Matters of faith or order and any of the Collonies shall 
apprehend it needfull to call in the helpe of a Councell or Synode for the orderly 
Desision therof ; That the Members of such Councell or Synode May consist of the 
Messengers of the Churches called Indifferently out of all the vnited Collonies by an 
orderly agreement of the severall Generall Courts and the place of meeting to be att 
or neare Boston.” 





1 See remarks of G. L. Walker, Hzst. First Ch. Hartford, p. 201. 

2 Conn. Records, 11:67. 

3 Jbzd., 70. Trumbull, I: 457, 458. 

4 The Commissioners, two from each colony, had met annually from 1643 till the union of 
Conn. and New Haven. Their importance was now little and they met triennially. 

5 Acts of Comm. of United Colonies, I1 : 328, in Records of Plymouth, Boston, 1859, X. 
See also Conn. Records, 11: 69, 70. 


276 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


On the strength of this vote the three ministers named ap- 
proached the Connecticut Court at its meeting October ro, 1667, 
and declared that the Assembly wished the Court to lay the 
questions before a larger Council, composed of representatives of 
the other colonies as well as of Connecticut." To this Rev. Messrs. 
Joseph Haynes of Hartford, and Gershom Bulkley of Wethersfield, 
the former Whiting’s colleague and rival, responded in an address 
to the Court, in which they denied that the Assembly -had desired 
a larger Council.? In this they doubtless represented the senti- 
ment of their Half-Way Covenant friends. But to the Court the 
idea of a Council of all the colonies proved attractive, and it there- 
fore voted requesting the churches to send their ministers to meet 
with those of Massachusetts and Plymouth, and asking the Massa- 
chusetts Court to appoint the time and place of meeting*—a desire 
which the Connecticut Court expressed by letter to the authorities 
in Boston, October 16, and transmitted by John Whiting.* But 
the Massachusetts Court was disinclined to move and made an 
evasive reply.° Thus all the elaborate preparations for such a set- 
tlement of disputed points in Connecticut as Massachusetts had 
attempted in 1662 ended in failure. : 

The Court recognized the unavailing character of its attempts, 
but the quarrels still continued at Hartford and elsewhere. As a 
last resort, therefore, on May 16, 1668, the Connecticut legislature 
requested Rev. Messrs. James Fitch of Norwich, Gershom Bulkley 
of Wethersfield, Joseph Eliot of Guilford, and Samuel Wakeman of 
Fairfield, to meet at Saybrook or Norwich on the following 8th or 
oth of June, and:° 


‘*Consider of some expedient for our peace, by searching out the rule and thereby 
cleareing up how farre the churches and people may walke together within themselues 
and one w" another in the fellowship and order of the Gospel, notwithstanding some 
various apprehensions amonge them in matters of discipline respecting membership 
and baptisme &c.” 


1 Conn. Records, 11: 69, 70. 2 Trumbull, Wzst. Conn., I: 458. 
3 Conn. Records, 11: 70. 4 Tbtd., 516, 517. 
pelizd.| Records . , . SiMassmb aya ine 2 354. 


® Conn. Records, Il: 84. Bacon, Discourse, in Cont. Eccles. Hist. Conn., p. 27, has pointed 
out that one of the ministers was chosen from each of the four then newly established counties of 
the colony. 


wy 





THE DISCUSSION ENDS IN TOLERATION 277 


It was a confession of failure to secure union and a declaration of 
a willingness to admit variety in ecclesiastical practice. 

In accordance with the request of the Court the four ministers 
met, and at the session of the legislature, May 13, 1669, presented 
their “returne.” Exactly what this was we do not know, but it 
appears to have been of a conciliatory nature. The same Court 
voted thereupon as follows, a vote which was the practical solution 
of the Half-way Covenant dispute as far as the government of 
Connecticut was concerned: ’ 


‘““This Court . . . doe declare that whereas the Congregationall Churches in 
these partes for the generall of their profession and practice haue hitherto been ap- 
proued, we can doe no less than still approue and countenance the same to be w*out 
disturbance vntill better light in an orderly way doth appeare; but yet forasmuch as 
sundry persons of worth for prudence and piety amongst us are otherwise perswaded, 

This Court doth declare that all such persons being allso approued accord- 
ing to lawe as orthodox and sownd in the fundamentalls of Christian religion may 
haue allowance of their perswasion and profession in church wayes or assemblies 
w*out disturbance.” 

Here was a formal toleration for both the supporters of the 
Half-Way Covenant and its opponents, and permission also for 
churches hopelessly split upon the question to divide. Of this 
latter privilege the minority in the church at Hartford availed 
themselves at once.” But it curiously illustrates the strength of 
the Half-Way Covenant movement, in spite of the brave and in 
many ways successful fight made against it, that the withdrawing 
party at Hartford should, apparently on the very day of their 
formation into a separate church, have begun the use of the sys- 
tem hostility toward which had been their original ground of 
quarrel with the majority of the old church.? From this permis- 
sion that both systems should exist side by side in Connecticut, 
interest in the dispute waned. In Massachusetts similar toleration 
had come to be practiced, though without leaving so distinct a 
mark upon the records of the colony. In Connecticut and Massa- 
chusetts alike the supporters of the Half-Way Covenant were the 


1 Conn, Records, I1: 109. 

2 Conn. Records, 11: 120. Walker, Hist. First Ch. Hartford, pp. 204-209. The Second 
Ch, Hartford was organized Feb, 12-22, 1670. 

3 Jbzd. 


278 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT . 


growing party. Yet the stricter usage ‘continued to have its rep- 


resentatives and was never wholly abandoned for the larger.’ 


Though aside from the main purpose of this introduction | 
to the results of 1657 and 1662, a few words as to the later his- 
tory of the Half-Way Covenant may not be inappropriate. The 
theory on which the action of the Ministerial Assembly of 1657, 
and the Synod of 1662, was based, was that only children of 
church members were entitled to baptism, because they alone 
had inherited membership. Children of those who were not in 
covenant were not to be baptized, they were not members of the 
church, and could only become so (save in the case: of adoption 
into the household of a church member) by a profession of per- 
sonal piety. So too “owning the covenant” was, in the view of 
the originators of the Half-Way Covenant practice, a solemn 
personal acceptance, as far as it lay in a man’s power unaided 
by divine grace, of his place in the visible Kingdom of God, and 
a formal declaration of his intention to do his best to lead a 
Christian hfe by association in worship and discipline with the 
recognized people of God. He who was himself by birth one in 
covenant with God, and who made that covenant his own by a 
public declaration, was deemed to be in a state where he might 
hopefully expect that work of grace in the heart which it was 
believed God alone could effect. But as the seventeenth cen- 
tury closed, and the eighteenth with its prevailingly low type of 
piety wore on, the original basis of the baptismal right in the 
existing membership of the recipient was less and less insisted 
upon, though never absolutely forgotten. To “own the cove- 
nant” and to present one’s children for baptism became less a 
solemn claiming of rights already possessed, and more an act 
deemed of value in itself. The membership of the claimant sank 
into the background; the rite, which was at first but a symbol 
of that membership, became the important thing, and to receive 


it was looked upon as a duty, something to be done for one’s 





1 Bellamy was able to write in 1769, when the reaction against the system was beginning: 
‘‘Even to this day the custom is not universal.” The HalfWay-Covenant, a Dialogue, New 
Haven, 1769, p. 3. 





ITS LATER: HISTORY 279 


children just as it was a duty to teach them to pray. So it came 
about that, by the time Cotton Mather wrote the Ratio Discipline, 
many ministers admitted all applicants of good moral character to 
the covenant and granted them and their children baptism, with- 
out question as to whether the recipients were members by birth 
or not.’ This was a wide departure from the original Half-Way 
Covenant practice, and one which tended vastly more than that 
to cheapen the Gospel ordinances. Indeed, there is reason to 
believe that in many places admission to the covenant came to 
be looked upon much as signing a temperance pledge has fre- 
quently been regarded in our day,—as a means by which large 
bodies of young people might be induced to start out in the 
right path in life.” And while some churches admitted to bap- 
tism those who had no other claim than a respectable life and 
a willingness to take the covenant obligations, others granted 
the rite to the children of those who had themselves been bap- 
tized, without requiring any covenant promises from the parents 
at all.* 

It was natural that when the barriers which the Ministers’ 
Convention and the Synod had erected between the non-church 
member and baptism were so broken down, that those other 
obstacles which they had placed between the member by birth 
who could not claim to be personally regenerate and the Lord’s 
Supper should be lightly regarded in many quarters. If a man 
was member enough to be presumed fit for one sacrament in 


the absence of flagrant immorality, why was he not competent to 


1 Published 1726, Preface dated 1719. ‘“‘It may be added, There having been some Insinu- 
ations made unto the World, as if the Streets here were crouded with Unxdaptized People, because 
the Churches have not such Zersms of Initiation here, as are practised in ofher Protestant 
Churches, ’tis to be now declared, that this is a most unaccountable CaZumany, for tis well known 
there is not one Person in all the Country free from a scandalous and notorious disqualifying 
Ignorance and /mpiety, but what may repair to some Hundred Ministers in these Colonies and 
be Baptised,”’ p. 80. 

2 Compare Dexter, Cong. as seen, p. 475. 

3On April 30, 1789, the First Church, Haverhill, Mass., voted: ‘‘ Whereas it has been 
customary for persons in order to obtain baptism for their children, to make a public profession of 
faith called ‘owning the Covenant,’ and as this condition may hinder some persons (though other- 
wise qualified) from complying with the institution; voted that it be no longer required, but the 
children of all baptized persons may be admitted to this holy ordinance unless they (the parents) 
have forfeited this privilege by scandalous immorality.’’ Quoted by D. T. Fiske, Cont. Eccles. 
Hist. Essex Co., Mass., p. 279. 


a 


280 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


receive the other? So some men in New England reasoned, and 
the result was what may be called “Stoddardeanism,” from the 
name of its chief exponent, though Stoddard was by no means 
the originator of the view. Its essence was that it was the duty 
of all who were sincerely desirous of living a Christian life, and 
who were church members by birth, even though not consciously 
regenerate, to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Though never 
adopted by a majority of the New England churches, it was wide- 
spread in Western Massachusetts and’ Connecticut during the 
eighteenth century. 

As early as 1677, Increase Mather, in a sermon before the 
Massachusetts General Court, complained of the spread of Stod- 
dardean principles’ in the ranks of the ministry. Nor was the 
region: about Boston the only section of New England where 
such views were taught. They came into debate at the so-called 
Reforming Synod of 1679, where they exercised some influence 
on the result.2. They were widely prevalent during the last 
quarter of the seventeenth century. But it is in the writings 


of Solomon Stoddard® that they have their sharpest expression. 





1‘*] wish there be not teachers found in our Israel, that have espoused loose large princi-. 
ples here, designing to bring all persons to the Lord’s Supper, who have an historical faith, and 
are not scandalous in life, though they never had experience of a work of regeneration in their 
souls.’ <A Call from Heaven To the Present and Succeeding Generations, Boston, 1679, quoted 
by L. Withington, Cont. Eccles. Hist. Essex Co., Mass., pp. 389, 390. 

2 Stoddard, in his Appeal to the Learned, pp. 93, 94, tells the following story: ‘‘ The words 
of the Synod [of 1679] are these, /¢ zs reguzstte that Persons be not admitted unto Communion 
tn the Lords Supper without making a Personal and Public Profession of their Faith and 
Repentance, [etc., The passage is in Wecessity of Reformation, p. 10; to be found later in this 
work.] I shall give the World an Account how the matter was acted. Some of the Elders in 
the Synod had drawn up a Conclusion, That persons should make a Relation of the work of Gods 
Spirit upon their hearts, in order to coming into full Communion. Some others of the Elders ob- 
jected against it, and after some discourse it was agreed to have a dispute on that question, 
Whether those Professors of Religion as are of good Conversation, are not to be admitted to full 
Communion, provided they are able to Examine themselves, and discern the Lords body. Mr. 
[Increase] AZather, held the Negative; I laboured to make good the Affirmative ; The result was, 
That they blotted out that clause of Making a Relation of the work of Gods Spirit, and put in the 
room of it, The Making a Profession of their Faith and Repentance; and so I Voted with the Rest, 
and am of the same judgment still.’”? To this statement of Stoddard the anonymous writer of the 
Appeal of Some of the Unlearned replied, p.17: ‘‘ The Story told of the blotting out a Passage: 
in the result of the Synod, we are upon good Information from the Moderator [Increase Mather] 
himself, who drew up that Result, assured it is a mistake, and a gross one.’’ But the definite state- 
ment of Stoddard over his own name is to be preferred to the hearsay of a nameless writer. Fur- 
ther confirmation of Stoddard’s accuracy may be found in Thacher’s account of the Reforming 
Synod quoted in chapter xiii of this volume. 

3 Solomon Steddard was born at Boston in 1643, educated at Harvard, where he graduated 
in 1662, and after serving the college as tutor and librarian, he accepted an invitation to preach at 
Northampton in 1669, and a formal call in 1672. Here he remained till he died, Feb. 11, 1729. Of 





‘““ STODDARDEANISM ””’ 281 


That able and devout minister left the impress of his thought 
throughout the Connecticut valley. In 1700 he published his 
Doctrine of Instituted Churches,’ a treatise which is widely at va- 
riance with the theories of early Congregationalism and is es- 
sentially a step in the direction of the parish systems of Europe. 
Not only did he assert the desirability of National Churches,’ a 
doctrine against which the founders of New England set their 
faces; he denied the necessity of local covenants, in which they 
firmly believed;* while his views as to the authority of the min- 
ister in church administration would have suited the Presbyte- 
rian Parker of Newbury had he lived a generation earlier.* But 
his theory of access to the Supper is more important. He asks 


the question and gives the answer:° 


‘‘ Whether such Persons as have a good Conversation and a Competent Knowledge, 
may come to the Lords Supper, with a good Conscience, in case they know them- 
selves to be in a Natural Condition ? 

Answ. They may and ought to come tho they know themselves to be in a 
Natural Condition; this Ordinance is instituted for all the adult Members of the 
Church who are not scandalous, and therefore must be attended by them; as no Man 
may neglect Prayer, or hearing the Word, because he cannot do it in Faith, so he 
may not neglect the Lords Supper.” 


Increase Mather’s Order of the Gospel* had apparently called’ 
out the treatise of Stoddard, and Mather now hastened to reply, 
reasserting his well known views, which were essentially a conserv-- 


his piety and pastoral zeal there can be no doubt, both were conspicuous, and his ministry was 
marked by at least five revivals. A man of much personal modesty, he was one of the great 
preachers of his day and easily the foremost minister in western Massachusetts, indeed Pres. 
Dwight declared that he ‘‘ possessed, probably, more influence than any other Clergyman in the 
province, during a period of thirty years.’’ An excellent sketch of him may be found in Sibley, 
Graduates of Harvard, 1: 111-122, where a list of his writings and a considerable bibliography 
of his life isgiven. For the tradition as to Stoddard’s conversion at the Supper, see I. N. Tarbox, 
in New Englander, XLIII : 624-626 (Sept., 1884). 

1 For the writings of Stoddard and his opponents see azfe, p. 240. 

2 Instituted Churches, p. 25. 

3 [bid., p. 8. 

4“The Teaching Officer is appointed by Christ to Baptize and Administer the Lords. 
Supper, and therefore he is made Judge by God, what Persons those ordinances are to be Admin- 
istred to, and it is not the work either of the Brethren or Ruling Elders, any ways to intermeddle 
in that Affairor Limit him . . . The Teaching Elders with the Ruling Elders, make the Pres- 
bytery of the Church; with whom the Government of the Church is entrusted: The Power of 
Censuring offenders in the Church and absolving of Penitents, doth belong alone to these, the 
Brethren of the Church are not to intermeddle with it.’ Zézd., p. 12. 

5 Jbtd., p. 21. Exactly when Stoddardeanism was adopted by the Northampton church is: 
uncertain. The records show that as late as 1706 a distinction was made between covenant mem- - 
bers and those in full communion. 

6 Boston, 1700. See anfe, p. 240. 


19 


282 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


ative presentation of the general positions of the leaders of the 
Half-Way Covenant movement forty years before. Stoddard made 
no immediate answer, but did not change his opinion, which he 
reasserted after a time in a published sermon, printed in 1708, 
which again called out Mather and led to Stoddard’s elaborate 
defense of his theory in his Appeal to the Learned. In this work he 
affirms: ’ 


‘* This Ordinance [Supper] has a proper tendency in its own nature to Convert 
men. Herein men may learn the necessity & sufficiency of the Death of Christ in 
order to Pardon. Here is an affecting offer of Christ crucifyed ; here is a Sealing of 
the Covenant, that if men come to Christ, they shall be Saved, which is a great means 
to convince of safety in coming to Christ. 

All Ordinances are for the Saving good of those that they are to be administred 
unto. This Ordinance is according to Institution to be applyed to visible Saints,? 
though Unconverted, therefore it is for their Saving good, and consequently for their 
Conversion.” 


These views of Stoddard spread widely and were adopted by 
many goodmen. The majority of the churches in Western Massa- 
chusetts accepted them, they were largely entertained in Connecti- 
cut, and the region about Boston was not without their represen- 
tatives.* But though they might be held by devoted ministers and 
in earnest communities, they were a nullification of the conception 
of a church entertained by the founders of New England.* Yet the 


root of Stoddardeanism is to be found in the dual and inconsistent 


1 Page 25. 

2 Stoddard’s conception of ‘‘ visible saints’’ was ‘‘Such as make a serious profession of the 
true Religion, together with those that do descend from them, till rejected of God.’? Justituted 
Churches, p. 6. 

3 In 1750, at the time of Edwards’s dismission from Northampton, the old Hampshire Asso- 
ciation might be divided as follows; Stoddardean, Amherst, Brimfield, Deerfield, East Granville, 
Great Barrington, Greenwich, Hadley, South Hadley, Longmeadow, New Marlborough, Northfield, 
Northampton, Sheffield, Shutesbury, Southampton, Springfield, West Springfield, Sunderland, 
Westfield, Wilbraham ; Somers, Conn.; Suffield, Conn.; A xz¢z-Stoddardean, Belchertown; En- 
field, Conn.; Pelham. Hatfield was doubtful. See Mew Englander, lV: 353. The following 
ministers defended these views at various times in print, George Beckwith, Lyme, Conn.; Charles 
Chauncy, First Church, Boston; Ebenezer Devotion, Scotland, Conn.; Moses Hemmenway, Wells, 
Me.; Joseph Lathrop, West Springfield, Mass.; Moses Mather, Darien, Conn.; Solomon Williams, 
Lebanon, Conn. These of course represent but a few of the real number of adherents. Their 
geographical distribution may suggest something as to the wide spread of these opinions; while the 
later history of most of the churches represented may also suggest a degree of hesitation in claim- 
ing, as has often been done, that Unitarianism was the direct fruit of Stoddardeanism and the Half- 
Way Covenant. 

4 Could anything much more foreign to the ideas of Hooker or of Cotton be imagined than 
the following church-act? ‘‘ At a church meeting holden in Westfield [Mass.] Feb. 25th, 1728, 
voted, that those who enter full communion, may have liberty to give an account of a work of 
saving conversion or not. It shall be regarded by the church as a matter of indifference.’’ Mew 
Englander, \V: 354. 


OPPOSEL) BY? LEE, KEVIV AL SPIRIT 283 


theory of those founders as to church-membership, by experience 
and by birth. It is the complete demonstration of that original 
incongruity. 

Perhaps the best illustration of the change of feeling which 
had come over New England in regard to the privileges of church 
membership is the statement of Cotton Mather in the Ratio Discr- 
pling, where he speaks of the Stoddardean view as held by “some 
eminent Pastors (and some of their Churches),” and then describes 
the more conservative theory, defended by his father, that none 
should be admitted to the Supper but those who could testify to 
“ Experimental Piety.” He declares:* 


‘Indeed there is a Variety both of Judgment and Practice in the Churches of Vezw- 
England upon this Matter ; However it produces no troublesome Variance or Con- 
tention among them.” 


Fortunately this condition of apathy was not of long duration. 
The rise of a new type of theology led to an earnest and ultimately 
successful effort to overthrow not only Stoddardeanism but the 
Half-Way Covenant; and the struggle began where Stoddardeanism 
was most intrenched, at Northampton, Mass. Stoddard’s successor 
was his grandson, Jonathan Edwards,’ who became pastor of the 
Northampton church February 15, 1727. For nearly twenty years 
after the commencement of his ministry Edwards practiced the 
system introduced by his grandfather. But Edwards was deeply 
moved by the revival spirit of the second quarter of the eighteenth 
century. Though essentially Calvinistic, the prevailing type of 
theology in New England during the second half of the seven- 
teenth century had laid great stress on the external means of 
grace. It was an unemotional age in religion. Revivals were 


almost unknown. No very sharp distinction was drawn, either in 





1 Pp. 84, 85. 

2 Born at East Windsor, Conn., Oct. 5, 1703, graduated at Yale 1720, studied theology at 
Yale till 1722, preached till April, 1723, in New York, became tutor at Yale May, 1724, and held the 
post till September, 1726. Settled at Northampton February, 1727, dismissed June, 1750. Settled 
at Stockbridge August, 1751, dismissed to become president of Princeton, January, 1758. Died 
March 22, 1758. Among the numerous biographies of Edwards perhaps the most valuable is S. E. 
Dwight, Life of President Edwards, New York, 1830. It is amply illustrated with letters and 
documents. A suggestive sketch is that of Prof. A. V. G. Allen, J/oxathan Edwards (American 
Religious Leaders Series), Boston, 1889 (Reviewed by Dr. J. W. Wellman, Boston, 1890). A com- 
plete bibliography of Edwards’s writings and a list of biographical authorities will be found in Prof, 
F. B. Dexter, Biog. Sketches of the Grad. of Yale, pp. 221-226. 


284 THE HALF-WAY COVENANS 


experience or teaching, between the converted and unconverted. 
Though believed to be clearly distinguished by the eye of God, to 
human vision a careful discrimination was difficult. Hence great 
value was set on those means by which a soul might be nurtured 
in the Kingdom of God. As the eighteenth century opened this 
tendency increased, and to a considerable extent the type of 
preaching became ‘‘Arminian,” as it was termed,—that is, increas- 
ing weight was laid upon the cultivation of morality as a means to 
a Christian life, rather than upon an insistance on the prime neces- 
sity of a divinely wrought change in a man’s nature, a change of 
which morality should not be the means, but the fruit. It was the 
prevalence of these views in greater or less degree which made 
the acceptance of the Half-Way Covenant easy, and it is from them, 
rather than directly from that Covenant, that New England Uni- 
tarianism derives, in large part, its origin. But the revival move- 
ments in the fourth and fifth decades of the eighteenth century 
reproduced in large degree the type of preaching and experience 
which characterized the Puritans at their exodus from England. 
Conversion, that is, a conscious sense of a change in a man’s rela- 
tions to God, was insisted on as the prime test of Christianity. 
Such an experience is individual, not corporate; and in proportion 
as conscious regeneration was made the standard of trial, the cor- 
porate theory of hereditary covenant relationship to God sank into 
the background. And, as nothing short of a distinct sense of 
reconciliation with God’s plans was held to give ground for a valid 
Christian hope, the supporters of the revival movements insisted 
that any dependence on means, however good in themselves, was 
illusory and dangerous,— many going so far as to say that no ac- 
tion of an unconverted man, not even prayer, could be acceptable 
in the sight of God. The “Great Awakening” under the preach- 
ing of Whitefield in 1740-41, led to a sharp division between the 
holders of the two positions, nicknamed at that time the “Old 
Lights” and the “ New Lights.” The principles of the school of 
theology which came out of the revivals were thus of necessity 


opposed to the Half-Way Covenant, and to that school its destruc- 


EDWARDS AND BELLAMY 285 


tion was due. Of that school the founder and pioneer was Jona- 
than Edwards. 

As has been seen, Edwards practiced Stoddardeanism far into 
his Northampton ministry, and at first without very serious scru- 
ples. But the revivals in which he bore a large share gradually 
produced a change of feeling in him, and by 1744 he was fully con- 
vinced that the theory of Stoddard was wrong.’ No opportunity, 
however, permitted him to put his changed ideas into practice till 
December 1748, when he denounced the system in vogue in the 
Northampton church with his accustomed courage, and the contro- 
versy began between him and his people which led to his dismission 
iam iine 1750.05 ln the heat of this discussion he published, in 
August, 1749, his Humble Inquiry . . . Concerning the Qualifi- 
cations Requisite to . . . full Communion.’ The work was pri- 
marily an argument against Stoddardeanism, that was the point 
under debate between Edwards and the Northampton church; but 
it contained, in a subsidiary paragraph, a vigorous and consistent 
attack on the Half-Way Covenant system as conducive to a false 
sense of security and the neglect of a true seeking for conversion.* 
To this tract Rev. Solomon Williams of Lebanon, Conn., replied,’ 
touching, of course, chiefly on the Stoddardean problem involved 
in the dispute; but in his rejoinder to Williams, Edwards did not 
fail to make clear once more his opposition not only to Stoddard- 
eanism, but to the Half-Way Covenant. 

With this reply the discussion of the subject in print ceased 
for a number of years, but Edwards’s criticisms had their direct 
fruitage. Probably no disciple of Edwards more fully shared his 


views regarding conversion than Joseph Bellamy,°® from 1738 to 


1 See Dwight, Lz/e of Pres. Edwards, pp. 435-438. 

2 For a full account of the circumstances leading to the dismission see /d7d., pp. 298-403. 

3 See ante, p. 241. 

4 Dr. D. T. Fiske in his valuable account of the Half-Way Covenant, Cont. Eccles. Hist. 
Essex Co., p. 281, has fallen into the error of affirming that Edwards opposed Stoddardeanism, but 
not directly the Half-Way Covenant. Dr. Dexter, Cong. as seen, p. 487, quotes Dr. Fiske’s state- 
ment with approval, and cites in confirmation the fact that Edwards administered the covenant in 
1742. But neither writer has made allowance for the change in Edwards’s views, and both must 
have overlooked pp. 126-131 of the Humble Inguiry. Compare G. L. Walker, Vew Englander, 
XLII: 6rr. 


5 See ante, p. 243. 
8 Bellamy was born in Cheshire, Conn., Feb. 20, 1719; graduated at Yale 1735; studied the- 
oiogy to some extent under Edwards. Began preaching at Bethlem in November, 1738, and was 


286 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


1790 the minister at Bethlem, Conn. On him and the church 
under his charge the effect of Edwards’s tracts was decisive. The 
Bethlem Church Records bear testimony that:’ 


‘‘ Upon the publishing of Mr. Edwards’ Book on the Sacrament, this Practice [the 
Half-Way Covenant] was laid aside, as not warranted by the holy scriptures —there 
being no other scriptural owning the covenant, but what implies a profession of 
Godliness.” 


But, in spite of this vote, and in spite of a defense of 
Edwards which shows that Bellamy was fully in sympathy with 
the Northampton pastor’s opposition to Stoddardeanism and could 
logically hold no other position than that of hostility to the Half- 
Way Covenant,’ it was not till nearly twenty years after Edwards’s 
dismission that Bellamy began his determined public attack on 
the system. In January 1769, he published his first dialogue 
against the Half-Way Covenant.’ Its homely but vigorous put- 
ting of the case had an immediate effect. Within the next few 
months three replies, two of which are of considerable ability, 
appeared. In April, Bellamy issued a second dialogue, and soon 
followed it by a third, with which he combined an attack upon 
a Stoddardean treatise on the Vzszble Church, in Covenant with God,’ 
which had just been put forth by Rev. Moses Mather of Darien, 
Conn. Answers followed from Mather and others, and the fight 
of pamphlets waxed hotter and more personal. A fourth dialogue 
and a reply to Mather came from Bellamy’s pen. Meanwhile a 
second controversy on the same subject was in progress between 
Jacob Green, an Edwardean pastor at Hanover, New Jersey, and 
Rev. George Beckwith of Lyme, Conn. At the same time the 
question rose, apparently independently, to prominence in the 
church at Plymouth, Mass.,° of which Chandler Robbins, a pupil 
of Bellamy, was pastor. 





settled there in April, 1740. He remained in Bethlem till he died, Mch. 6, 1790. He was a prolific 
writer and a keen, if not always very generous, controversialist. His home was a Theological School, 
in which a number of New England theologians were trained, e. g., the younger Jonathan Ed- 
wards, Samuel Spring, and Joseph Eckley. His works were published in 3 vols., New York, 1811, 
and 2 vols., Boston, 1850. A valuable biographical sketch, with a list of authorities, is that of F. B. 
Dexter, Biog. Sketches Grad. Yale, pp. 523-529. Lives in Sprague, Annals Am. Pulpit, 1: 404- 
412; and by Prof. Park, Schaf-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, may be mentioned. 

1 In Cothren, Hist. Ancient Woodbury, p. 244. 

2 Dialogue on the Christian Sacraments, Boston, 1762, but apparently written not long 
after Edwards's dismission. 

3 For the treatises in this controversy, see azte, pp. 241-244. 

4 See ante, p. 243. 5 Jbid., Pp. 243, 244. 


THE SYSTEM ABANDONED 287 


The controversy thus begun continued, though with less fre- 
quency of publication, throughout the rest of the century. After 
Bellamy had laid down his pen forever, the battle was waged 
with most vigor by Rev. Cyprian Strong of Portland, Conn., who 
attacked the system as early as 1780, but whose most powerful 
work dates from 1793.’ Strong went so far as to deny that the 
children of believers are personally in covenant. Their baptism 
is not a right, but an act of dedication and a pledge of parental 
faithfulness. At the same time, Rev. Nathanael Emmons, of 
Franklin, Mass., and Rev. Stephen West of Stockbridge, Mass., 
two of the leaders of the school of so-called “ New Divinity” of 
which Jonathan Edwatds was the founder, engaged in the attack. 
From the representatives of the Edwardean theology and its 
later modifications came the overthrow of the system. Able sup- 
porters of the older type of New England theology, like Rev. 
Messrs. Joseph Lathrop of West Springfield, Mass., and Moses 
Hemmenway of Wells, Maine, defended the Half-Way Covenant, 
and even Stoddardeanism, with vigor during the last decade of 
the eighteenth century; but the gradual dominance of the idea 
of conversion held by the representatives of the ““New Divinity ” 
throughout the Trinitarian body of the churches, emphasized by 
the remarkable series of revivals which began in the closing years 
of the last century and lasted well into the present, brought the 
system to an end. In most of the New England churches the 
change of feeling caused it to be quietly laid aside. At the Old 
South Church, Boston, it has never been formally voted out, 
though last administered in 1818,? and there is reason to believe 
that this tacit disuse of the system was not unusual. At Windsor, 
Conn., it was in use as late as 1822,°in Essex County, Mass., it 
lasted till about 1825,* while the church at Charlestown, Mass., 
continued the practice till 1828.° 








1 See azte, p. 242. 2SeeH. A. Hill, Wzst. Old South Ch., 11: 235. 

3 New Englander, XLIII: 614. See also Stiles, A uczent Windsor, p. 173. A prominent 
member of the Conn. Hist. Society at the present time, 1893, Dea. Jabez H. Hayden, was baptized 
under the Half-Way Covenant at Windsor. Mr. Hayden informs me that about the beginning of 
this century there was a general understanding among the ministers of central Connecticut not to 
practice the system except in families in which it had already been begun. 

4 Cont. Eccles. Hist. Essex Co., p. 279. 

5 New Englander, Ioid. 


THE DECISIONS OF 16572. NiOg oe? 


RESULT OF THE ASSEMBLY OF 1657 (EXTRACTS) 


A | DISPUTATION | concrerninc | Church--Members 
| AND THEIR | CHILDREN,| In| ANSWER | ro | XXI. 
QUESTIONS: | Wherein the State of such Children when Adult, | 
Together with their Duty towards the Church, | And the Churches 
Duty towards them | is DISCUSSED. | sy an | ASSEMBLY of 
DIVINES | meeting at Boston in| VEW ENGLAND, | June 
Tee eh | Now Published by a Lover of Truth. | | 
London, Printed by /. Hayes, for Samuel Thomson at the Bishops | 
Head in Pauls Church-yard. 1659 








[ii blank] 
[iii] 
Poithe ie Ra 
T ts justly accounted one of the glories of the English Nation, that 
God hath honoured them with special light in some momentous Truths, 
above what he hath other Protestant Churches round about them. 
The morality of the Christian Sabbath, decp and spiritual insight into 
those secret transactions between the Lord and the soules of his elect at 
their first conversion, & also in thetr after walking tn communion with 
God, are usually observed as instances hereof. And of the same kind, 
though perhaps in a lower rank, are those Truths about |t\he instituted 
Worship of God, which have been now for some years a considerable 
part of those disquisitions, which do also at this day exercise the most 
searching thoughts and ablest pens that are amongstus. . . . {ililine 
13-V line 26] J¢zs true indeed the CivilMagistrates of that Jurisdiction 
of the English zx New-England ¢hat lies upon the River Connectiquot, 
sent these Questions to the Magistrates of the Massachusets, and they 
mutually called together sundry of the ablest Ministers of each Colony, 
and recommended to thetr search and considerations these enquiries thus 
stated, thus framed; And this was the happy rise of this Disputation; 


‘ 1 The reader should be warned that this Preface is no part of the official result of the Assem- 
bly of 1657. It is simply a private explanation written by Nathanael Mather. On its authorship, see 
Increase Mather, 7he Life and Death of . . . Mr. Richard Mather, Cambridge, 1670, p. 32. 
Nathanael Mather was the third son of Richard Mather, born 1630, graduated at Harvard, 1647, 
went to England about 1650, and received.a living at Harberton in 1655. In 1656 Cromwell zave 
him a living at Barnstaple, which he held till 1662, when, debarred from preaching in England, he 
became minister at Rotterdam, Holland, In 1671 he became Congregational pastor at Dublin, Ire- 
land, and in 1688 went to London, where he preached till he died, July 26, 1697. See Sibley, Bzog. 
Sketches Graduates Harvard, 1: 157-161, where a list of biographical sources will be found. 


( 288 ) 


PREFACE TO THE RESULT OF 1657 289 


what ts here thus tendered to the world, being the result and product of 
the consultations and debates on this occaston had, which was by the 
Lilders met together agreed to, and accordingly presented, to the Magis- 
trates of the aforesaid Jurisdictions respectively. Lut neverthelesse, tt 
was especially and nextly for the service of the Churches, the pious and 
careful Magistrates deing herein indeed nursing Fathers to them, for 
they finding doubts, and |vi| perhaps some differences about these points, 
likely to arise and adisguiet the Churches, took this prudent and happy 
course, timely to bring forth such light, as might be to universal satisfac- 
tion, before darknesse had brought forth difference in judgment and 
perhaps practise also, and that contentions, and they such animosities and 
paroxysmes as would afterwards more hardly be healed, than |then |’ 
prevented, 

These Papers came some moneths ago to England, and tt was then 
in his thoughts that had them in his hands, to have made them publick ; 
but for some reasons which then prevailed with him he forbore, yet hath 
since given way thereto, partly expecting, according to some intimation 
which he had from New-England, that the Magistrates there would 
have ordered the printing of them. But, not hearing since that tt ts 
there done, he hath given way to the desires of some Friends here, who 
were acquainted with them, and with his having of them, that they should 
now thus be made publick ; hoping withall, that what ts done herein, will 
not be unacceptable to those Reverend persons, that were the authors 
of this Disputation. Lspecially considering, that God who formes the 
Spirit of man within him, and in an espectal manner guides the hearts 
and studies of his servants, hath of late set awork some of them in Old 
England also, to search into these Questions, and communicate the issue 
of thetr enquiries to the world in print; whence likewise many more, are 
awakened to destre and long, for further light in these points about 
which the main part of this disputationis. . . . [vi line 24—vii line 
6] . . . And these Papers with the truths therein, having tn them- 
selves a tendency to this happy end, the midwifeing of them by the press 
into the publick and common light, in compliance with the aforesaid 
providence (they being ltkely otherwise to have lien hid in a private hand 
or two) cannot be lookt upon as at all tijurious to those honoured and 
reverend Elders that were the Authors of them, much lesse to any 
others ; for ’tis here done, (saving the Errata of the press) with such 
Jaithfulnesse as cannot be impeached. 

And this ts the rather satd, because perhaps the Reader may have 
been deceived in some other Treatises, which have gone abroad, and gen- 
erally been look’t upon, as the compilement of the lders zz New-Eng- 
land; whereas they had but one private person for their Author. So it 
as indeed in the 32 Questions, the Answerer whereof was Mr, Richard 
Mather, and not any other Elder or Elders in New-England, who likewise 
as the Author of the discourse concerning Church-Covenant printed 
therewith, which latter he wrote for his private use in his own Study, 
never intending, nor indeed consenting to tts publication, nor so much as 
knowing unto this day how the copy of tt came abroad tnto those hands by 


1 MS. addition (by Increase Mather ?), 


290 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


whom tt 71s made publick, save that he conjectures some procured a copy of 
it from Mr. Cotton, ¢4o whom (such was thetr tntimacy in his life time) 
he communicated tt, as he writes in a late Letter to a Son of his now tn 
England wo zt seems had enquired of him concerning those Treatises ; 
and much lesse ts there any truth tn that which ts said in the Title page 
prefixed to the Discourse of Church-Covenant, as zf zt were sent over 
to Mr. Barnard Anno 1639; Mr. Mather having neither acquaintance 
nor any intercourse by Letters with Mr. Barnard. 

LVor indeed, are these Papers, now in thy hands, the declared judg- 
ment of all the Elders in New-England, there being but about twenty 
called together by the Magistrates fo consult of these things, and declare 
their judgments in them, and of those twenty, two or three met not with 
the rest. They are neverthelesse the genuine product of that [viii| Meet- 
ing of Elders which on the forementioned occasion was held in the 4™ 
Moneth 1657 at Boston zz New-England. 

What entertainment they will meet with now they are abroad tt ts 
not for me to say. They must now run the same hazard with other 
writings of this kind. Some passages there are which I fear will be 
wrested by one kind of men or other to serve thetr own hypothesis. It was 
in my thoughts, having some spectal advantages for tt, here to have in- 
serted somthing as to those particulars for the prevention of such an abuse. 
But [ shall only say this, let but such passages tn this short tract as seem 
most to vary from what the Klders and Churches of New-England 
have been accounted to professe and practise, receive an interpretation as 
they will bear, from thetr own declared judgment, either in their plat- 
form of Church Discipline, or zz other writings of thetr own, and I 
doubt not but tt will be found, they are not warped from their former 
faith and Order: Whatever some may think from this Treatise, or 
whatever Mr. Giles Firmin’ hath born the world in hand, in any of his 
late misrepresentations of them ; whom I rather chuse to instance in, for 
that his reports of New-England have perhaps therefore found the more 
credit, because he above others is not without advantages to know New- 
England, and the waies of the Churches there, better than tt seems he 
doth.” 





' Giles Firmin (1614-1697) was a Puritan of much mark’both as a preacher and as a physician. 
He came to Boston in 1632, practiced medicine and was a deacon of the First Church. In 1647 he 
returned to England and became pastor at Shalford, Essex, an office which he held till 1662. His 
views on church-government were substantially those of Baxter, and led him to critise the Congre- 
gational system. See Dict. National Biog., xix* 45, 46. 


2 The 18 concluding lines of the Preface are omitted. 


EXTRACTS FROM THE RESULT OF 1657 291 


[x] A 
DISPUTATION 
CONCERNING 
Church--Members 
AND THEIR 
CHILDREN 
IN 
ANSWER TO 21 QUESTIONS, 


Quest. 1. FLether any Children of confederate 
Parents be under their Parents Co- 
venant and members with them. 


Answ. Some Children of con- 

federate Parents are by meanes of their Parents 
Covenanting, in Covenant also, and so Members of the Church by 
divine Institution. For, [2] d4zg.1. They that are in that Cov- 
enant for substance which was made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7. 
they are in Covenant, and Members of the Church, by divine 
Institution, because that Covenant doth inferre Church-Member- 
ship, as being the formall cause thereof; For 1. A people that 
are in that Covenant, are thereby the visible People or Church 
of God, Gen. 17. 7. compared with Deut. 29. 12, 13. by this Cove- 
nant the Family of Adraham, and so afterwards the People of 
Israel, was made and established the visible Church of God. 
2. Many were in that Covenant, which never were in saving 
state of grace; Therefore that was the externall or Church Cov- 
enant, which God makes with his visible Church or People. 
3. Circumcision sealed that Covenant, which was the distinguish- 
ing mark between those within and those without the Church. 

But some children are in that Covenant for substance which 
was made with Adraham, Gen. 17. 7. as appears by sundry Scrip- 
tures, which being rightly considered, and compared, do inferre 
the continuance of the substance of that Covenant, whereby God 
is a God to his People and their seed, under the new Testament, 
Beez a Gar. 3.14. with) Gen 28.4) Komo1t..16, 17°. .| . [pee 
bne2s—p. 3, line.12.] % . . 

Arg. 2. Such children as are by Christ, affirmed to have a 
place and portion in the Kingdome of Heaven, they have a place 
and portion in the visible Church, and so consequently are mem- 
Bers thereof. ... . [p. 3:1.a5—p. 4.1. 4.] 

mee. 3. It no ichildren be members of the visible Church, 
then was not the Lord Jesus (when a child) a member of the 


292 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


visible Church, but none (we presume) will venture to say so 
of Christ. 

Arg. 4. If it were not so, no children might be Baptized: For 
Baptisme being a Church Ordinance, and a seal of being incor- 
porated into the Church, 1 Cor. 12. 13. and succeeding circum- 
cision, which was proper to the Church, none can be subjects 
immediately capable thereof, but Church-Members; Nor doth the 
Power of Officers, as such, extend further then to the Churches; 
as they cannot judge, so they may not Baptize them that are 
without, or non-members. 

Arg. 5. Théey-that are some of the Disciples intende mae 
Mat. 28: 19. are Church-members. .  .~ .) [| 1) 413-5 ]ia eee 
some children are some of the Disciples intended in AZaz, 28. 19. 
For 1. some children were some of those whom the Apostles in 
accomplishing that com-[5]|mission, did Disciple, Acts 15. 20. 

[l. 1. —l.9.] And that the Apostles took in children with 
Parents when they were conversant in the work of Discipling, 
further appears from Acts 27-30, & 16. 15, 31,°337 1) G7 eee 

[1. 13-1. 23.] 

Arg. 6. They that are subjects of the Lords visible=Spimit- 
ual Kingdom, servants and children of the Lords Family, they 
are Members of the Church, which is called the Lords Kingdom, 
and House and Family in the Scripture: But so are some chil- 
drén, 22ek 3720 26 n2 79 19 ay [1 28“. Onl Lost 

Arg. 7. If no children be members of the visible Ciueem: 
then we have no well-grounded hope according to ordinary course 
of dispensation, of the salvation of any dying Infants: And the 
reason is, because salvation pertains to the Church, J/sa. 45. 17. 
Liph. 2. TA a S028 Ol CNOA, 22. ACL 25:2 ae een 
[l. 23—p. 7. 1. 3.] 

Arg. 8. If some children were Members of the Church of 
God in the old Testament, then some children are Members of the 
Church of God in the daies of the new Testament - But some chil- 
dren were Members of the Church in the time of the old Testa- 
Ment. «2:52! +).0e4 eye aS] 

But all the Question will be about the consequence of the 
Proposition, and that may be cleared thus. 

1. If the Church of the old Testament and the Church of the 
Gentiles under the new Testament, be for kind essentially the 
same, then if children were Members of that Church, they are also 
Members of these: [modern Gentile churches] . . . [l.9.—p. 
oe 

2. Again, If the consequence be not good, then it will follow 


EXTRACTS FROM THE RESULT OF 1657 293 


that such /ews as were brought in by the Gospel into Church- 
estate, were great losers by embracing the Gospel; and the chil- 
dren losers by their Parents Faith, inasmuch as though in the 
former state, the children were Members with the Parents. 
[1. 8.—p. rr. 1. 4.] 

5. If children were once Church-members and do not continue 
to be Church-members still, then their Membership must have 
been repealed by the Lord, who alone could make such an altera- 


Ponaeee es. fl. 7 — 1) 75.] 

iaett tne lord had:made’ such an alteration ~ «* . - then-in 
all likelihood Christ or his Apostles would have made mention of 
it: . . . but now Christ and his Apostles in stead of mention- 
ing any such thing, do confirm the contrary, AZark 10, 13, 14, 16. 
Memes lca) ize | |p. rr. 1 23-8p. 12.113.) 


Quest. 2. Whether all children of whatever years or condition be 
so, as, 1. Absent children never brought to the Church. 2. Born before 
their Parents Covenanting. 3. Lncorrigtble of seven, ten, or twelve years 
old. 4. Such as destre not to be admitted with their Parents, of such 
an age. 

Ans. Onely such children as are in their minority, covenant 
with their Parents; therefore not all children of whatsoever years 
and conditions. We do not hereby exclude such as being defective 
in their intellectuals, are as children in respect of their incapacity. 

2. Children in their minority, though absent, covenant in 
Pieimeratents. . ~ . 3. Children born before their Parents’cove- 
nanting, yet if in their minority when their Parents enter into 
Pepeoaniecaoccovenantewith them. ©. 7.) 3) [p:4. li] 4. There 
is no sufficient reason (at least ordinarily) to conclude a child of 
seven, ten, or twelve years old to be incorrigible. . . . [l. 4— 
1, 15.] 

Quest. 3. Jill what age shall they enter into Covenant with their 
Parents, whether sixteen, twenty one, or sixty? 

Ans. As long as in respect of age or capacity they cannot 
according to ordinary account, be supposed able to act in a matter 
of this nature for themselves, . . . much is to be left unto the 
discretion of Officers and Churches in this case. 

Quest. 4. What Discipline a child ts subject to, from seven to six- 
teen years old? 

[14] Ams. x. Church Discipline is taken either more largely 
for the act of a Church-member dispensed to a Church-member as 
Sueisepy Way Of Spiritual watch, rebuke, Gc. . . . Or more 
strictly, for the act of the whole Church, dispensed by a Member 


204 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


ee 


thereof; as in case of publick rebuke, admonition, excommunica- 
tion. . . . In the first sense, children in their minority, are 
subject to Church Discipline immediately, but not in the second. 

2. It is the Duty of the Elders and Church to call upon Par- 
ents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of 
the Lord, and to see as much as in them lieth, that it be effectu- 
ally done, 

or Besides had subjection to Ecclesiastical Discipline, they 
are also subject to civil Discipline respectively according to their 
capacity, whether Domesticall, Scholasticall, or Magistraticall. 

Quest. 5. Whether a Father may twice Covenant for his Children 
tn Minority in several Churches ? 

Ans. 1. When a Parent is called to remove from one Church 
to another, he is also called to enter into covenant in that Church 
to which;hewzemoves.. 4) cele. |)25——pai 5 ee 

2. When the Parent thus removing, entreth into covenant, 
his children then in minority covenant in him: 

3. Hence it is the duty of Churches when ach give Letters 
dimissory unto Parents, to insert the dismission of the children 
then in minority with them. 

4. Adult children yet under the power of the Parents and re- 
moving with them, are to give their personal consent unto this 
translation of their Membership, and so to be orderly dismissed 
and received with their Parents, otherwise they remain Members 
of the Church of which they were before. 

Quest. 6. Whether the end of a Deputy Covenant, be not to supply 
personall incapacity, or whether Children ripe for personall Covenanting 
in regard of age, should Covenant by a Deputy, as others that are unable 
thereunto ? 

Ans. 1. Children in their minority, whose immediate Parents 
are in Church-Covenant, do covenant in their Parents; 

2. Children adult ought to covenant in their own Persons. 
To covenant in our own persons according to the sense of this 
Question, is nothing else but an orderly and Church profession of 
our Faith, or a personall publick and solemn avouching of God, in 
an Ecclesiasticall way, to be our God, according to the covenant 
ofehis Grace,, (2.0 gh ipetseuln 390-— Peal Zale 12:| 

Quest. 7. Whether as large Qualifications be not required of a 
Members chitd to the participation of the Lords Supper, and the privt- 
ledges of votes and censures, as were requirable of his Parents at their 
jirst entrance? 

Ans. The holding forth of Faith and Repentance with an 


EXTRACTS FROM THE RESULT OF 1657 295 


ability to examine themselves, by way of confession, to the judg- 
ment of Charity, were all requirable in the Parent for admission 
into the Church to full communion, and the same is requisite for 
the regular admission of the Parents child being grown adult, unto 
his full communion with the Church. . . . [p.17. 1. 22—p. 18. 
l.29.] . . . Concerning the power of voting, it is not rational 
that they should exercise a Church-power as to the administration 
of Church-Ordinances, which voting implies, who themselves are 
gut ioral Ordinances, .. .. . .[p. 18.'1.33-——p. no. 6.] 

Ques. 8. Whether by Covenant seed, ts meant the seed of immediate 
Parents onely, or of remote also? 

Ans. The Gospel by Covenant seed, intends only the seed 
of immediate Parents in Church Covenant, as appears from 1 Cor. 
7.14. The Parents there spoken of are immediate Parents, their 
Progenitors were Heathens. The Gospel extends not the external 
Covenant beyond the immediate Parents. . . . [l.13—l. 26.| 

Ques. 9. Whether adopted Children and bond servants be Cove- 
nant-seed ? 

Ans. Adopted children and Infant-servants, regularly and 
absolutely subjected to the Government and dispose of such 
heads of Families as are in Church-covenant, though they cannot 
be said to be their natural seed, yet in regard' the Scriptures 
(according to the judgment of many Godly Learned) extend to 
them the [20] same Covenant priviledges with their natural seed, 
we judge not any Churches who are like-minded with them, for 
their practise herein: All which nothwithstanding, yet we desire 
at present to leave this Question without all prejudice on our 
parts to after free disquisition. 

Ques. 10. Whether the child admitted by his Fathers Covenant, be 
also a Deputy for his seed, without or before personal Covenanting, or 
without & before like personal qualifications in kind, as his Father 
was to ergoy when he became a Deputy ? 

Ans. The meaning of this Question in other terms we con- 
ceive to be this; whether the child of a person joyned in Church- 
Covenant by means of his or her immediate Parents Covenant, 
though such a Parent be not admitted to, nor qualified for full 
communion, nor have covenanted in their own person, whether 
we say, the child of such a person is to be baptized: Whereunto 
we answer, in these following propositions. 

Propos.1. Infants either of whose immediate Parents are 
in Church-Covenant, do confederate with their Parents, and are 
therefore Church-members with them. See Ans. to Quest. 1. 


} Perhaps fo such children should be inserted. 


206 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


Propos.2. It is the duty of those Infants when grown up 
to years of discretion, though not yet fit for the Lords Supper, 
to own the Covenant they made with their Parents, by entring 
thereinto in their own persons, and it is the duty of the Church 
to call upon them for the performance thereof; as appeareth by 
Scripture examples of persons both called to, and entring into 
Covenant, many of whom could not be looked upon as person- 
ally Gracious, and therefor not fit for all Ordi- [21] nances and 
full communion, Deut, 29) 12,14. 2 Chron! 15°12. 2 CAh77 eee 
LIMs 2 ew hs 

Propos. 3. Being accordingly called thereunto, if after Church- 
admonition and other due means with patience used, they shall 
refuse the performance of this great duty, or in case they shall 
(notwithstanding like means applied) any otherwise continue 
scandalous, it is the part of the Church to proceed with them 
to the censure of excommunication . . . [p. 21. 1 11—l. 24.| 

Propos. 4. In case they understand the grounds of Religion, 
are not scandalous, and solemnly own the Covenant in their 
own persons, wherein they give up both themselves and their 
children unto the Lord, and desire Baptism for them, we (with 
due reverence to any Godly Learned that may dissent) see not 
sufficient cause to deny Baptism unto their children, these rea- 
sons for the affirmative being proposed to consideration. 

1. Church-Members without offence and not bapti- [22] zed, 
are to be baptized. 

The children in Question are Church-Members without of- 
fence and not baptized. 

Therefore the children in Question are to be baptized. 

2. Children in the covenant of Abraham, as to the substance 
thereof, z. ec. To whom the promise made to Abraham, as to the 
substance thereof doth belong, are to be baptized. 

The children in Question are children in the covenant of 
Abraham, as to the substance thereof. 

Therefore the children in Question are to be baptized. 

3. Children in the same estate with those children under 
the Law, unto whom the seal of the righteousnesse of Faith, 
because in that estate was by Institution Divine to be applied, 
the Precept for so doing not repealed, and the reason for so 
doing still remaining are to be baptized. 

But the children in Question are children in the same estate 


[etc. | . 


Therefore the children in Question are to be baptized. 


EXTRACTS FROM THE RESULT OF 1657 297 


4. Either the children in question are to be baptized, or 
the Gospel dispensation forbids the application of the seal unto 
children regularly in Church-covenant, unto whom the Mosaical 
dispensation commanded it to be apphed. 

[23] But the Gospel dispensation forbids not [etc. | 

Therefore the children in question are to be baptized. [I. (ee 
l, 16.] 

5. Children unto whom the Gospel testifieth both the prom- 
ise and baptisme by vertue of that promise, to belong, ought to 
be baptized. 

The children in question are children unto whom [etc. | 

Therefore the children in Question ought to be baptized. 

O07. The Parent though a Church-member, owning the Cov- 
enant in his own person, and qualified according to the prem- 
ises, is not admitted to full communion, therefore the child ought 
not to be baptized. 

Ans. The Church-act onely, and not any other act (much 
lesse defect) of the Parent is by Divine Institution, accounted 
to the child. The membership of the child is a distinct mem- 
bership, from the membership [24] of the Parent. In case the 
Parents membership ceaseth by death or censure, the member- 
ship of the child remaineth still. The membership of the child 
is the same in kind with, and not inferiour to the membership 
of the Parent. Membership is a Relation, and therefore admits 
not of magis and mzniws, more or lesse: Members are better or 
worse, and communion is more or lesse; but membership admits © 
not of degrees. Senjamin an Infant, but an hour old, is as truly 
a son as Meuben,a man of twenty two years of age. The child 
is baptized by vertue of his own membership, and not by vertue 
of his Parents membership. The Parents death is not with us 
an obstacle of the Childs Baptism. 

Propos.5. The same may be said concerning the children of 
such persons in question, who being dead or necessarily absent, 
either did or do give the Churches cause in judgment of charity, 
to look at them as thus qualified, and such, as had they been called 
thereunto would so acted. For in Charity that is here done inter- 
pretatively, which is mentioned in the fourth Proposition expresly. 

Propos. 6. ‘Though the persons forementioned own the Cove- 
nant according to the premises, yet before they are admitted to 
full communion (z. e. To the Lords Supper and voting) they must 
so hold forth their Faith and Repentance, unto the judgment of 
Charity by way of confession in the congregation, as it may appear 

20 


298 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


unto the Church, that they are able to examine themselves and to 
discern the Lords body. See the proof hereof in Ans. to Quest. 7". 

Quest. 11. Whether children begotten by an excommunicate person 
are to be baptized, he so remaining ? 

[25] Avs. We cannot for the present answer the following 
Arguments for the Negative. 1. Persons excommunicate are not 
members . . . 2. Excommunicate Parents are to be looked at 
in Church-account. as Heathens. and. Publicans; 73 eaeee 
baptize the children of the excommunicate, is to have Church-com- 
munion with the excommunicate: . . . [p. 25. 1. 12—l. 16.] 

Quest. 12. Whether a Child born of a justly censurable person, yet 
not actually excommunicate, be to be baptized ? 

Ans. We answer affirmatively. . . . [l. 19—1. 25.] 

Quest. 13. Whether a Members Childs unfitness for seals, disableth 
not his seed for Membership or Baptism? 

Ans. ‘This question agreeing in scope with Quest. 10. We refer 
thither for Answer thereunto. 

Quest. 14. Whether a Members Child be censurable for any thing 
but scandalous actions, and not also for ignorance and tnexpertence ? 

Ans. A Members child (like as it is with all other [26] mem- 
bers) is censurable only for scandalous sins, dZat. 18. 15, 18. 1 Cor. 
Sail. ae Lea lo 

Quest. 15. Whether a Members Child must only examine himself, 
and may not be examined by others, of his fitnesse for seals ? 

Ans. It is a duty of a Members child to examine himself, 
and yet he is also subject to the examination of others. 
fl. rr —1. 24.] 

Quest. 16. Whether only Officers must examine in private or else 
publike before the Church ? 

Ans. Concerning their examination by the Elders in private, 
the former reasons conclude affirmatively. 

[27] Publick examination we also conceive to be regular, 

[pe 27.41. 27a] 

Quest. 17. Whether the same grown Members Child must not be 
examined of his Charitable experience, before Baptism, as well as before 
the Lords Supper ? 

Ans. We think the Elders do well to take an account of chil- 
dren, concerning the Principles of Religion according to their 
capacity, before they be baptized. . . . [l. 13—l. 23.] 

Quest. 18. Whether baptized Children sent away from the Church 
for settlement, and not intending return, are continually to be ac- 
counted Members ? 


EXTRACTS FROM THE RESULT OF 1657 299 


Ans. Baptized children though locally removed from the 
Church unto which they belong, are to be accounted Members, 
until dismission, death or censure dissolve that Relation, because 
Christ the Institutor of this Relation, onely by these waies dis- 
solveth the same. 

Quest. 19. Whether Historical Faith and a blamelesse life fit a 
Members Child for all Ordinances and [28] Priviledges, and he must 
be examined only about them? 

Ans. Not only historical Faith, z. e. The meer knowledge of 
the fundamental Doctrine of Faith and a blamelesse life, but also 
such an holding forth of Faith and Repentance, as unto judgment 
of Charity sheweth an ability to examine themselves and to dis- 
cern the Lords body, is requisite to fit a Members child for all 
Ordinances and Priviledges, and his blamelesse life notwithstand- 
ing, a Members child is to be examined concerning the other 
Gualineations, .»:  ..,[p. 28. |. a1.—I. 32] 

Quest. 20. Whether tf a Church-Member barely say, tt repents 
me, though seventy times seven times follow-[29\ing he relapse into the 
same gross evils, as lying, slander, oppression, &c. He be to be forgiven, 
and not censured ? 

Mise)... sWithout the. fruits meet, for, repentance, we are 
not-cavled to forgive, 1727,.2..8.. Luk. 17.3. 

Notwithstanding a Brother offends seventy times seven times, 
that is, many times, a definite number being put for an indefinite, 
yet whilst God enables him to repent, it is our duty to forgive. 
‘Tis not the number of offences, but the holding forth of repent- 
ance in the offender, that is the measure of our forgivenesse. 

' [p. 29. l. 17—l. 29.] 

Quest. 21. Whether a Member under offence and not censured, or 
not with the highest Censure, can authoritatively be dented the Lords 
Supper or other Church-priviledges ? 

Ans. 1. None but the Church can Authoritatively [30] deny 
to the Member his accesse unto the Lords Supper, because the 
power thereof is only delegated to that subject, A/az. 18. 17. 

2. The Church cannot deny unto a Member his accesse unto 
the Lords Supper, untill she hath regularly judged him to be an 
offender. 

3. The censure of admonition is the first act whereby a Church 
doth judicially declare a Member to be an offender; therefore till 
the censure of admonition be past, a Member cannot Authorita- 
tively be denied communion in the Lords Supper, or other Church- 
priviledges, because of offence. 


300 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


4. After the sentence of Admonition is past, the offender now 
admonished, may be (yea thereby is) Authoritatively denied to 
come unto the Lords Supper, and to vote in the Church, because 
he is judicially unclean, Lev. 22.3, 4.7& 7. 20,21. “W7a7 sees 
Though he be not yet Censured with the Censure of Excommuni- 
cation. 

5. All which notwithstanding, there are cases wherein a 
Brother apparently discerned to be in a condition rendring him 
(should he so proceed to the Lords Supper) an unworthy Commu- 
nicant, may and ought regularly to be advised to forbear, and it is 
his duty to hearken thereunto. 

6. Yet two things are here carefully to be attended. 

1. That Brethren be not many Masters, taking upon them 
to advise and to admonish others to abstain without cause, or 
beforenthe time. a7 sents 

2. That none forbear to come worthily, which is their 
duty, because to their private apprehension, another is [31] 
supposed (at least) to come unworthily, which is their sin. 

7. In case the Church shall see cause to advise a Member to 
forbear, and he shall refuse to hearken thereunto, his refusal being 
also a violation of Church Order, addeth contumacy to his offence, 
and thereby ripens the Offender for Censure. 


19 4%. 1657. 
Boston. N. E. 


PREFACE TO THE RESULT OF 1662 301 


RESULT OF THE SYNOD OF 1662 


PROPOSITIONS | concerRNnInG THE | SUBJECT of BAP- 
TISM | anv | CONSOCIATION of CHURCHES, | Collected and 
Confirmed out of the WORD of GOD, | By a | SYNOD of 
ELDERS | AND | MESSENGERS of the CHURCHES | in AZassachusets- 
Colony in Mew-Lngland. | Assembled at BOSTON, according 
to Appointment of the | Honoured GENERAL COURT, | In 
the Year 1662. | ———| A?¢ a GENERAL Court eld at Boston 
in New- | England the 8" of October, 1662.| THe Court having 
Read over this Result of the Synod, judge meet to | Commend the same 
unto the Consideration of all the Churches and | People of this Jurts- 
diction; And for that end doe Order the Printing | thereof. | By the 
Court. Ldward Rawson Secret’. | | CAMBRIDGE : | 


Printed by S. G. for Hezekiah Usher at Boston in | Mew-England. 
1662. 





[ii Blank] 


[iit] 
IMaGe. Medd eaMOl De 
TO THE 
Giiki Sli aNeek BADER 
And especially to the Churches of A/assachusets-Colony 
in MEW-ENGLAND. 


Flat one end designed by God's All-disposing Providence, in 
leading so many of his poor people into this Wilderness, was 
to lead them unto a distinct discerning and practise of all the 
Wayes and Ordinances of his House according to Scripture- 

pattern, may seem an Observation not to be despised. That we are fit 
or able for so greata service, the sense of our own feebleness forbids 
us to think. But that we have large and great opportunity for it, 
none will deny. For, besides the useful Labours and Contemplations 
of many of the Lords Worthies in other places, and tn former times, 
contributing to our Help, and shewitng our Principles to be neither 
novell nor singular, the advantage of Experience and Practise, and 





1 This Preface was prepared after the close of the Synod, by order of the Massachusetts 
General Court, by the Committtee appointed by the Synod to report the results to the Court. 
It is probably from the pen of Jonathan Mitchell. See azze, p. 269. 


302 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


the occaston thereby given for daily searching tnto the Rule, ts con- 
siderable, , And He that hath made the path of the just as a shining 
light, zs wont still to give unto them further light, as the progress 
of their path requires further practise, making his Word a Lanthorn 
to their feet, Zo shew them their way from step to step, though haply 
sometimes they may not see far before them. Jt ts matter of humbling 
to us, that we have made no better improvement of our opportunities 
this way ; but some Fruits God hath given, and ts to be praised for. 

In former years, and while sundry of the Lords eminent Servants, 
now at rest from their labours, were yet with us, A Platform of 
Church-Discipline, comprizing the brief summe thereof, espectally in 
reference to the Constitution of Churches (which was our first work 
when we came into this Wilderness) was agreed upon by a Synod 
held at Cambridge, and published to the world: Krom which (as to 
the substance thereof) we yet see no cause to recede. Some few par- 
ticulars referring to the Continuation and Combination of Churches, 
needed yet a more ex-[iv| plicite stating and reducing unto practise. 
Lor though the Principles thereof were included in what ts already 
published, yet that there hath been a defect in practise (especially since 
of late years there was more occasion for tt) ts too too apparent: For 
the rectifying whereof, a more particular Explication of the Doc- 
trine also about these things, ts now necessary. 

In order hereunto, by the Care and Wisdome of our Honoured 
General Court, calling upon all the Churches of this Colony, to send 
their Elders and Messengers, ¢his Synod was assembled, who after 
earnest Supplications for Divine Assistance, having consulted the holy 
Scriptures touching the Questions proposed to them, have proceeded 
to the following Issue ; hoping that tf it might seem meet to the Father 
of Lights to guide the Churches unto a right Understanding and 
Practice of his Will tn these things also, the beauty of Christ's qwayes 
and Spiritual Kingdome among us would be seen in some more com- 
pleatness then formerly. For that which was the prayer of Epaphras 
Jor the Colossians, ought to be both the prayer and labour of us all ; 
viz. that we might stand perfect and compleat in all the will of 
God: And we trust it ts our sincere desire, that his Will, all his 
Will, and nothing else but his Will, might be done among us. To 
the Law and to the Testimony we do wholly referre our selves, 
and if any thing in the following Conclusions be indeed found not 
to speak according thereunto, let wt be rejected. 

We are not ignorant that this our Labour will by divers be di- 
versly censured ; some will account us too strict in the Point of Bap- 
tism, and others too laxe and large: But let the Scriptures be Judge 
between us all. There are two things, the Honour whereof ts in 
a special manner dear to God, and which He cannot endure to be 
wronged in; viz. HZis Holiness, and His Grace. The Scripture is 
often putting us in minde how much the Lord loveth Holiness, and 
that in his Hlouse, and in the holy Ordinances thereof, and how he 
abhorreth the contrary, Mal 2, 11. Psal. 93. 5. & 2. 6. Lev. 11. 44, 
45. Ezek 22. 26. & 44. 7, 8. And hence neither dare we admit those 
unto the holy Table of the Lord, that are short of Scripture-qual- 


PREFACE TO THE RESULT OF 1662 303, 


tfications for it; viz. Ability to examine themselves, avd discern 
the Lords body; Vor yet receive or retain those in Church-estate, 
and own them as a part of the Lords holy People, that are visibly 
and notoriously unholy, wicked and prophane: such we are bidden to 
put away from among us, I Cor. 5. 13. and therefore ought not to 
continue |v| among us. Neither may we administer Baptism to those 
whose parents are not under any Church-power or Government any | 
where. To baptize such, would be to give the Title and Livery to 
those that will not bear the yoke of Christs Disciples, and to put the 
holy Name of God upon them, touching whom we can have no toler- 
able security that they will be educated in the wayes of Holiness, or 
in the knowledge and practise of Gods holy Will. Baptism, whch 
ts the Seal of Membership in the Church the Body of Christ, avd 
an engaging Sign, zmporting us to be the devoted Subjects of Christ, 
and of all his holy Government, ts not to be made a common thing, 
nor to be given to those, between whom and the God-less licentious 
world there ts no visible difference; Thts would be a provocation 
and dishonour to the Holy One of Israel. 

On the other hand, we finde in Scripture, that the Lord ts very 
tender of his Grace; that he delighteth to manifest and magnifie the 
Riches of tt, and that he cannot endure any strattning or eclipsing 
thereof, which ts both dishonourable unto God, and injurious unto 
ema 2 te Diam or 2613. Rom 11.035. ~cts, 15. 10, 
Dimeric ons202 2420, 975 And in special fe ts large tn the 
Grace of his Covenant which he maketh with his visible Church 
and People, and tender of having the same strattned. Hence when 
he takes any into Covenant with himself, he will not only be their 
God, du¢ the God of their seed after them in their generations, 
Genes. 17, 7, 9. And although the apostate wicked parent (that re- 
jecteth God and his Wayes) do cut off both himself and hts Children 
after him, xod. 20. 5. & 34. 7. Yet the Mercy and Grace of the 
Covenant ts extended to the faithful and their seed unto a thousand 
generations, 2f the successive parents do but in the least degree shew 
themselves to be lovers of God, and keepers of his Covenant and 
Commandments, so as that the Lord will never reject them till they 
Peewee xOd 20, 6. Deut. 7.79. Psal ro5?*3, 9. Rom rr) °16 
-- 22. Hence we dare not (with the Antipedobaptist) exclude the 
Infant-children of the faithful from the Covenant, or from Member- 
ship zz the visible Church, and consequently not from Baptism the 
Seal thereof. Neither dare we exclude the same children from Mem- 
bership (or put them out of the Church) when they are grown up, 
while they so walk and act, as to keep their standing in the Covenant 
and doe not reject the same. God owns them still, and they doe 
in some measure [vi] own him: God rejects them not, and there- 
fore neither may we; and consequently their children also are not 
to be rejected. Should we reject or exclude any of these, we should 
shorten and straiten the grace of God's Covenant, more then God 
himself doth, and be injurious to the Souls of men, by putting them 
from under those Dispensations of Grace, which are stated upon the 
visible Church, whereby the children of God's visible people are suc- 


304 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


cesstvely in their Generations to be trained up for the Kingdome 
of Fleaven, (whither the Elect member shall still be brought tn the 
way of such means) and wherein he hath given unto Officers and 
Churches a solemn charge to take care of, and train up such, as a 
part of his flock, to that end, saying to them, as sometimes to Peter, 
If you love me, feed my lambs. Jz obedience to which charge we 
hope it ts, that we are willing and desirous (though with the in- 
Jerence of no small labour and burthen to our selves) to commend 
these Truths to the Churches of Christ; that all the Flock, even 
the Lambs thereof, being duly stated under Pastoral Power, we might 
after a faithfull discharge of our Duty to them, be able to give up 
our account another day with joy and not with grief. 

Flow hard zt ts to finde and keep the right middle way of Truth 
wm these things, ts known to all that are ought acquainted with the 
Controversies there-about. As we have learned and believed, we 
have spoken, but not without remembrance that we are poor feeble 
Jraiu men, and therefore desire to be conversant herein with much 
humility and fear before God and man. We are not ignorant of 
variety of gudgements concerning this Subject; which notwithstand- 
ing, with all due reverence to Dissenters, after Religious search of 
the Scriptures, we have here offered what seems to us to have the 
Jullest Evidence of Light from thence; tf more may be added, and 
may be found contained in the Word of God, this shall be no prej- 
udice thereunto. Hence also we are farre from desiring that there 
should be any rigorous imposition of these things (especially as to 
what 7s more narrow therein, and more controversal among godly 
men.) If the Honoured Court see meet so farre to adde their counte- 
mance and concurrence, as to commend a serious consideration 
hereof to the Churches, and to secure those that can with clearness 
of judgement practise accordingly, from disturbance, that in this 
case may be sufficient. To tolerate, or to desire a Toleration of 
damnable feresies, or of Subverters of the Fundamentals of Fatth 
or Order, were an |vii] trreligious inconsistency with the love of 
true Religion: But to bear one with another in lesser differences, 
about matters of a more difficult and controversal nature, and more 
remote from the Foundation, and wherein the godly-wise are not 
like-minded, ts a Duty necessary to the peace and wel-fare of 
Religion, while we are in the state of infirmity. In such things let 
not him that practiseth despise him that forbeareth, and let not him 
that forbeareth judge him that practiseth, for God hath received him. 

But as we do not thus speak from doubting of the Truth here 
delivered (Paul knows where the Truth lyes, and is perswaded of 
it, Rom. 14. 14. vet he can lovingly bear a Dissenter, and in like 
manner should we) So we do in the bowels of Christ Jesus commend 
the consideration of these things unto our Brethren in the several 
Churches. What ts here offered is farre from being any declining 
from former Principles, tt is rather a pursuance thereof, for tt ts 
all included in, or deducible from what we unanimously professed 


PREFACE TO THE RESULT OF 1662 305 


and owned in the fore-mentioned Platform of Discipline, many vears 
since. There it ts asserted, that Children are Church-members ; 
That they have many priviledges which others (not Church-mem- 
bers) have not; and that they are under Discipline in the Church, 
chap. 12. sect. 7. and that will infer the right of thetr children, 
they continuing to walk orderly. And the other matter of Conso- 
ciation, or exercise of Communion of Churches, zs largely held forth 
Siapimes. oC. 16. 

lt may be an Objection lying in the mindes of some, and which 
many may desire a fuller Answer unto; That these things, or some 
of them, are Innovations zz our Church-wayes, and things which the 
Lord’s Worthtes tn New-England, who are now with God, did 
never teach nor hold, and therefore why should we now, after so 
many years, fall upon new Opinions and Practises? Ls not this 
a declining from our first Purity, and a blameable Alteration? To 
this: Although it were a sufficient Answer to say, That in matters 
of Religion, not so much what hath been held or practised, as what 
should be, axd what the Word of God prescribes, ought to be our 
Enquiry and our Rule. The people in Nehemiah’s time are com- 
mended for doing as they found written in the Law, ‘hough from 
the dayes of Joshua the son of Nun, unto that day, the children 
of Israel had not done so, Wehem. 8.14, 17. See the like 2 Chron. 
30. 5, 26. 2 Kings 23. 21, 22. they did not tye themselves to former 
use and custome, but to the Rule of Gods written Word, and so [viii] 
should we. St was Thyatira’s praise, that their good works were 
more at the last then at the first, Rev. 2. 19. Zhe Lord’s hum- 
ble and faithfull Servants are not wont to be forward to think them- 
selves perfect zz their attainments, but desirous rather to make a 
progress 77 the knowledge and practise of God's holy Will. Tf there- 
fore the things here propounded concerning the children of Church- 
members, and the Consoctation of Churches, be a part of the Will of 
God contained in the Scripturcs, (as we hope the Discourse ensuing 
will shew them to be) that doth sufficiently bespeak their entertain- 
ment, although they had not formerly been held or heard of amongst 
us. Yet thts must.not be granted, the contrary being the Truth, viz. 
that the Points herein which may be most scrupled by some, are 
known to have been the judgement of the generality of the Elders of 
these Churches for many years, and of those that have been of most 
eminent esteem among us. As (besides what was before mentioned 
from the Platform of Discipline) may appear by the following Testi- 
monies from sundry Eminent and Worthy Ministers of Christ 27 
New-England, who are now with God. 

First, Touching the children of Church-menlbers. 

Mr. Cotton hath this saying; ‘The Covenant and Blessing of 
Abraham is that which we plead for, which the Apostle saith is come 
upon us Gentiles, Ga/. 3. 14. which admitteth the faithful and their 
Infant-seed, not during their lives, in case their lives should grow 
up to Apostacy or open Scandal, but during their infancy, and so 
long after as they shall continue in a visible profession of the 


300 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


Covenant and Faith, and Religion of their fathers: otherwise, if 
the children of the faithful grow up to Apostacy, or any open 
Scandal, (as /simael and Hsau did) as they were then, so such like 
now are to be cast out of the fellowship of the Covenant, and of 
the Seals thereof. Grounds and Ends of Baptism of Children.” p. 106. 
seé also Pp. 133, 134. Again, The seed of the Israelites thowem 
many of them were not sincerely godly, yet whilest they held forth 
the publick profession of God’s people, Deuw?. 26. 3 — — 11. and con- 
tinued under the wing of the Covenant, and subjection to the Ordi- 
nances, they were still accounted an holy seed, Zzra g. 2. and so their 
children were partakers of Circumcision. Yea further, though them- 
selves were sometimes kept from the Lords Supper (the Passeover) 
for some or other uncleanness, yet that debarred not their children 
from [ix] Circumcision. Against this may it not seem vain to 
stand upon a difference between the Church of Israel and our 
Churches of the New-Testament— For the same Covenant which 
God made with the National Church of Israel and their seed, it is 
the very same for substance, and none other, which the Lord 
makes with any Congregational Church, and our seed. Query g™ 
of Accommodation and Communion of Presbyt. and Congregat. Churches.” 
And the same for substance with those Queries, was delivered by him tn 
12. Propositions, as Mr. Vho: Allen w¢tnesseth in Epist. to the Reader 
before Treat. of Covenant and those Queries Now in the 8" of those 
Propositions he hath these words; The children of Church-members 
with us, though baptized in their infancy, yet when they come to 
age they are not received to the Lords Supper, nor admitted to 
fellowship of Voting in Admissions, Elections, Censures, till they 
come to profess their Faith and Repentance, and to lay hold of the 
Covenant of their parents before the Church; and yet their being 
not cast out of the Church, nor from the Covenant thereof, their 
children as well as themselves being within the Covenant, they may 
be partakers of the first Seal of the Covenant.* Lastly, speaking to 
that Objection, That the Baptism of-Infants overthrows and des- 
troys the Body of Christ, the holy Temple of God; and that in time 
it will come to consist of natural and carnal Members, and the power 
of Government rest in the hands of the wicked. He Answers, That 
this puts a fear where no fear is, or a causless fear. And tn prose- 
cution of his Answer he hath these words ; Let the Primitive Practise 
be restored to its purity, (vzz. that due care be taken of baptized mem- 
bers of the Church for their fitting for the Lords Table) and then 
there will be no more fear of pestering Churches with a carnal 
generation of members baptized in their infancy, then of admitting 
a carnal company of hypocrites confessing their Faith and Repen- 
tance in the face of the Congregation. Either the Lord in the 
faithfulness of his Covenant will sanctifie the hearts of the baptized 





1 London, 1647. 

2 Certain Queries Tending to Accommodation and Communion of Presbyterian and 
Congregational Churches, London, 1654, pp. 12, 13. 

3 Allen’s ‘To the Reader,”’ p. [xiv]; prefaced to Cotton, Covenant of Grace, etc. London, 1659. 

4 Doubtless from a manuscript. 


PREFACE TO THE RESULT OF 1662 307 


Infants to prepare them for his Table, or else he will discover 
their hypocrisie and profaneness in the presence of his Church 
before men and Angels, and so prevent the pollution of the Lords 
Table, and corruption of the Discipline of the Church by their par- 
taking in them. Grounds and Ends of Baptism, &c. p. 161, 163. See 
also Holiness of Church- |x| members,’ p. 41, 51, 56, 57, 63, 87. Bloody 
Tenent washed,’ p. 44, 78. 

Mr. Hooker saith, Suppose a whole Congregation should con- 
sist of such who were children to Parents now deceased who were 
confederate, their children were true members according to the 
Rules of the Gospel, by the profession of their fathers Covenant, 
though they should not make any personal and vocal expression of 
théir engagement as the fathers did. Swurvey,* part 1. p. 48. Again, 
We maintain according to truth, that the believing parent cove- 
nants and confesseth for himself and his posterity, and this 
covenanting then and now is the same for the kinde of it. Part 3. 
iPazse sce Pp. 17,18. part 1. p.'69, 70,77. dud in the Preface, 
setting down sundry things, wherein he consents with Mr. BR.“ he ex- 
presseth this for one, that Infants of visible Churches born of wicked 
parents, being members of the Church, ought to be baptized. In 
these (sazth he) and several other particulars, we fully accord with 
Mri. And Part 3. p. 11.~ It is not then the Question, whether 
wicked members while they are tolerated sinfully in the Church 
they and their children may partake of the Priviledges? for this is 
beyond question, nor do I know, nor yet ever heard it denied by 
any of ours. 

Mr. Philips, speaking of a people made partakers of Gods 
Covenant, and all the priviledges outwardly belonging thereto, 4e 
saith, Themselves and all that ever proceed from them, continue 
in the same state, parents and children successively, so long as the 
Lord continues the course of his Dispensation; nor can any alter- 
ation befall them, whereby this estate is dissolved, but some appar- 
ent act of God breaking them off from him. ef/y,® p. 126. Agazn, 
speaking of that Holiness, t Cor. 7. 14. he saith, 1 take it of foederal 
holiness, whereby the children are with the believing parents taken 
by God to be his, and by him put under his covenant, and so they 
continue when men of years, though they never have any further 
grace wrought in them, nor have any other state upon them, then 
what they had when they were born. J/é7d. p. 131. Again, a com- 
pany become or are a Church, either by conversion and initial con- 
stitution, or by continuance of the same constituted Churches 
successively by propagation of members, who all are born in 
Church-state, and under the covenant of God, and belong unto the 
Church, and are a Church successively so long as God shall con- 
tinue his begun dispensation, even as well & as fully as the first. 
ani. 145, 

1 London, 1650. 2 London, 1647. 

3 Survey of the Summnte of Church-Discipline, London, 1648. 

4 Prof. Samuel Rutherford. See axfe, p. 139. 


5 George Phillips, pastor at Watertown, Mass. A Reply to a Confutation of some Grounds 
Jor Infant Baptism . . . put forth against me by one T. Lamb, London, 1645. 


308 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


[xi] Mr. Shepard in Defence of the Nine Positions,’ p. 143. hath 
this expression, Concerning the Infants of Church-members, they 
are subject to Censures whensoever they offend the Church, as 
others are, though so long as they live innocently they need them 
not. And in the year 1649, not three moneths before his Death,’ he 
wrote unto a friend a large Letter (yet extant under his own Hand ) con- 
cerning the Membership of Children, wherein he proveth by sundry 
Arguments that they are Members, and answereth sundry Objections 
against tt, and sheweth at large what great good there is in children’s 
Membership. Jn which Discourses he asserteth, That as they are 
Members in their infancy, so they continue Members when they 
are grown up, till for their wickedness they be cast out; and that 
they being Members, their seed successively are members also, 
until by Dissolution or Excommunication they be unchurched: 
That though they are Members, it follows not that they must come 
to the Lords Supper, but they must first appear able to examine 
themselves, and discern the Lords Body: That the children of 
godly parents, though they do not manifest faith in the,Gospel, 
yet they are to be accounted of Gods Church, until they positively 
reject the Gospel, Rom. 11. That this Membership of children 
hath no tendency in it to pollute the Church, no more then in the 
Old Testament, but is a means rather of the contrary; And that 
there is as much danger (if not more) of the degenerating and 
apostatizing of Churches gathered of professing Believers, as of 
those that rise out of the seed of such. 

Mr, Prudden® zz a Letter to a friend written in the year 1651. 
doth plainly express tt to be his judgement, That the children of 
Church-members, are Members, and so have right to have their 
children baptized, theugh themselves be not yet admitted to the 
Lords Supper. //7s words are these: 


Touching the desire of such Members children as desire to have their children 
baptized, it is a thing that I do not yet hear practised in any of our Churches. But 
for my own part, I am inclined to think, that it cannot justly be denied, because their 
next Parents (however not admitted to the Lords Supper) stand as compleat Members 
of the Church, within the Church-Covenant, and so acknowledged that they might 
have right to Baptism. Now they being in Covenant, and standing Members, their 
Children also are Members by virtue of their Parents Covenant and Membership, as 
well as they themselves were by virtue of their Parents Covenant and Membership; 
And they have not renounced that Covenant, nor are justly censured for breach of 
that Covenant, but do own it and profess it, and by virtue of it claim the priviledge 
of it to their Children. Zhen he puts thishis Argument into form thus: Those 
Children who are within the Covenant of the C[h]urch, and so Members of it, Bap- 
tism cannot be denied unto. But the Children in question are within the Covenant 
of the Church, and so Members of it. Therefore Baptism cannot be denied unto 
them. The Assumption is proved thus: The [xii] Children of such Parents as are 
within the Covenant of the Church, and so Members of the Church, are themselves 
within the Covenant of the Church, and so Members of it. But the Children in 
question are Children of such Parents as are in Covenant, and so Members of the 


1 Thomas Shepard, pastor at Cambridge, Mass. T. Shepard & T. Allin, A Defence of the 
Answer made [by John Davenport] wzto the 9. Questions . . . against the Reply thereto 
by John Ball, London, 1645. 

2 He died Aug. 25, 1649. 

3 Peter Prudden, minister at Milford, Conn., died 1656. 


PREFACE TO THE RESULT OF 1662 309 


Church. Therefore they are so themselves. The Proposition is clear, because the 
Parents Covenant for themselves, and for their Children, Deut. 29. 10,— 16. Lzek. 
16. 8, 13. And God accepts both, Gez. 17. 12,13. the whole Nation is foederally 
holy, Zzra g. 2. they are expresly said to be in Covenant with their fathers, Dezt. 
2g. not partly or partially in Covenant, Rom. 9. 3, 4. Acts 2. 39. and God styles 
himself their God as well as their fathers, Ge. 17. 7, 8, 9. and to have God to be 
our God, is to be in compleat Church-Covenant with him. The Assumption is evi- 
dent, because else such their Parents had not had right to Baptism the Seal of the 
Covenant, but that they had right unto, and so received it; and the same right that 
they had, their Children have, who are included in their Covenant, as they were in 
their fathers — and are not less truely or less compleatly in Covenant. 


Lastly, (to adde no more) Mr, Nath. Rogers,’ zz a Letter to a 
Friend, bearing date 18, 11. 1652. hath these words : 


To the Question concerning the Children of Church-members, I have nothing to 
oppose, and I wonder any should deny them to be Members. They are Members zz 
censu Ecclestastico; God so calls them, the Church is so to account of them: And 
when they are adulte etatis, though having done no personal act, yet are to be in 
Charity judged Members still, and till after due calling upon, they shall refuse or 
neglect to acknowledge and own the Covenent of their Parents, and profess their belief 
of, and subjection to the contents thereof — For Practise, I confess I account it our 
great default, that we have made no more real distinction between these and others, 
that they have been no more attended, as the lambs of the Flock of Christ: and 
whether it be not the cause of the corruption and woeful defection of our youth, ds- 
quire permittimus. 


So that tt was the judgement of these Worthtes in thetr time, that 
the children of Church-members are members of the Church as well as 
their parents, and do not cease to be members by becoming adult, but do 
still continue tn the Church, untill tn some way of God they be cast out ; 
and that they are subject to Church-discipline, even as other members, and 
may have thetr children baptized before themselves be received to the Lords 
Supper; and yet that in this way there ts no tendency to the corrupting 
of the Church by unworthy members, or of the Ordinances by unworthy 
partakers. And tn the Synod held at Cambridge zx the year 1648. that 
particular point of Baptizing the children of such as were admitted 
members tn minority, but not yet in full communion, was tnserted tn some 
of the draughts that were prepared for that Assembly, and was then ae- 
bated and confirmed by the like Arguments as we now use, and was gen- 
erally consented to; though because some few dissented, and there was 
not the like urgency of occasion for present practise, tt was not then put 
into the Platform that was after Printed.” We need not mention the 
Meeting of Elders a¢ Boston upon the Call of the Honoured Court tn 
the year 1657. where in Answer to XXI. Questions, sznce Printed, this 
Point ts particularly asserted. By all which tt appeareth, that these are 
not things lately devised ; or before unheard-of, nor can they justly be 
censured [xiii] as Innovations or Declensions from the recetved Doc- 
trine in New-England. J¢ zs true, that in the beginning of these Plan- 
tations, and the Infancy of these Churches, there was not so much said 
touching these things as there hath been since; and the reason ts, Because 
then there was not the like occasion as since hath been: Few children of 
Church-members being then adult, at least few that were then married, 


1 Nathaniel Rogers, pastor at Ipswich, Mass., died 1655. 
2 See ante, p. 181. 


310 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


and had children. Accordingly, when a Question was put about the 
priviledges of Members children, when come to years, these Churches 
then having been but of few years standing, our Answer was, That by 
reason of the Infancy of these Churches, we had then had no occasion to 
determine what to judge or practise in that matter.” Answer to the 5 
and 6" of 32.Questions: which may satisfie as to the Reason why in 
our first beginnings there was no more satd touching these Questions. 
But afterwards, when there was more cause for tt, many of the Elders 
in these Churches, both such as are now living, and sundry who are now 
deceased, did declare their judgements as aforesaid, and this many years 
ago. 

i Secondly, Touching Consoctation of Churches, take these few 

Testimonies, in stead of many more that might be alledged. 

Mr. Cotton, Keyes,” p. 54,55. It is a safe and wholsome and 
holy Ordinance of Christ, for particular Churches to joyn together 
in holy Covenant, or Communion & Consociation among them- 
selves, to administer all their Church-affairs (which are of weighty, 
and difficult and common concernment) not without common con- 
sultation and consent of other Churches about them. <Aznd how it 
zs so, he there sheweth in all the particulars. See also p. 24, 25, 47 59. 

Mr... Hooker, Survey, see part: 4..p.a,°2..&.p.5. 7 47 are 
Preface he professeth his consent with Mr, R. That Consociation of 
Churches is not only lawful, but in some cases necessary. ‘That 
when causes are difficult, and particular Churches want light and 
help they should crave the assistance of such a Consociation. 
That Churches so meeting have right to Counsel, Rebuke &c. as 
the case doth require. And in case any particular Church shall 
walk pertinaciously, either in the profession of Errour or sinful 
Practise, and will not hear their counsel, they may and should 
renounce the right hand of fellowship with them. <Azd after he 
sets down this of Consociation of Churches amongst other things, 
wherein he had leave to profess the joynt Judgement of all the 
Elders upon the River; of WVew-haven, Guilford, Milford, Stratford, 
Fairfield, and most of the Elders in the Bay. By |xiv| which it ts 
clear, that this point of Consoctation of Churches ts no new invention of 
these times, but was taught and professed in New-England many years 
agoe, for soit was we see in Mr. Hooker’s time, and it ts now above 
jifteen years since he departed this life. 

To these our own Ministers, we shall only adde a passage in the Apolo- 
getical Narration of Dr. Goodwyn, J7r. Nye, Mr. Sidrach Simpson, 
Mr, Burroughes, and Mr. Bridge;* wherein, besides much more to this 
purpose, touching the Remedy provided tn the Congregational-way for 
mal-Administrations, or other miscarriages in Churches, p. 16-21. 
They set it down (in p. 21.) as their past and present Profession, ‘That 
it zs the most to be abhorred Maxime that any Religion hath ever 





1 R. Mather, Church-Government, London, 1643 (Answer to Nos. 2, 5, and 6 of the XXXII 
Questions), p. 22. (Written 1639.) 

2 London, 1644. 

3 See ante, p. 148. 

4 The chief Congregationalists in the Westminster Assembly. 


PREFACE TO THE RESULT OF 1662 21 


made profession of, and therefore of all other the most contradic- 
tory and dishonourable unto that of Christianity, that a single and 
particular Society of men, professing the Name of Christ, and pre- 
tending to be endowed with a Power from Christ, to judge them 
that are of the same Body and Society within themselves, should 
further arrogate unto themselves an exemption from giving account, 
or being censurable by any other, either Christian Magistrate 
above them, or Neighbour-Churches about them.’ See also. M/r. 
Burroughes Heart-Divis.” pag 43, 44. 

Brethren, bear with us: Were tt for our own Sakes, or Names, or 
Interests, we should not be sollicttous to beg Charity of you. With us 
itis a small thing to be judged of man’s day. But it ts for your 
sakes, for your children’s sake, and for the Lord’s sake, that we tntreat 
for a charitable, candid, and considerate Acceptation of our labour 
herein. Lt ts that the Congregations of the Lord might be established 
before Him in Truth and Peace, and that they might have one heart 
and one way 7x the fear of God, for the good of them and of their 
children after them. Do we herein seek our selves? our own advan- 
tage, ease or glory? Surely we feel the contrary! What ts tt we de- 
sire, but that we might do our utmost to carry your poor Children to 
Fleaven; and that we might see these Churches bound up together tn the 
Bonds of Truth and Peace? Forgive us this wrong. But should the 
Church-education of your children be by the want of your hearty concur- 
rence, rendered either unfetzible or ineffectual; should they live as 
Lambs in a large place, for want of your agreement to own them of 
the Flock, we beseech you to consider how uncomfortable the account 
hereof would be another day: We pray with the Apostle, that you do 
no evil, not that we should appear approved, [xv] but that you 
should do that which is good and right, though we be rejected. For 
we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth: and this 
also we wish, even your perfection, 2 Cor. 13. 7, 8,9. However, we 
hope after-ages will bear witness, that we have been in some measure 
Jfatthful to the Truth in these things, and to this part of Christs King- 
dome also tn our generation. 

But we may not let pass this opportunity, without a word of Cau- 
tion and Exhortation to the Youth of the Country, the children of our 
Churches, whose Interest we have here asserted. Be not you puffed up with 
Priviledges, but humbled rather, tn the awful sense of the Engagement, 
Duty, and danger that doth attend them: It ts an high favour to have a 
place tn Bethel, in the house of God, and in the gate of Heaven; 
but it ts a Dreadful place: God will be sanctified zz all that come 
nigh him. A place nigh unto God (or among his people who are near 
to him, Ps. 148. 14.) zs a place of great fear, Psa. 89. 7. Take heed 
therefore unto your selves, when owned as the people of the Lord your 
God, (Deut. 27, 9, 10.) lest there should be among you any root 
that beareth gall and wormwood. Take heed that you do not with a 





1An Apologeticall Narration Humbly Submitted to the Honourable Houses of Parlia 
meent, London, 1643. 

2 Irenicum, To the Lovers of Truth and Peace. Heart-Divisions opened in the Causes 
and Evilsofthem,; . . . And Endeavours to heal them. Wondon, 1646. 


312 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


spirit of pride and haughtiness, or of vanity and slightness, either chat- 
lenge or use any of your Priviledges. Think not to bear the Name of 
Christians, without bearing the Yoke of Christ. Remember, that all 
Relations to God and to his people, do come loaden with Duty; and all 
Gospel-duty must be done tn humility. Zhe wayes of the Lord are 
right, and the humble and sertous shall walk in them, but proud Trans- 
gressors shall fall therein, Be not sons of Belial, that can bear no 
yoke: Learn subjection to Christs holy Government in all the parts and 
wayes thereof. Be subject to your godly Parents: Be subject to your 
spirttual Fathers and Pastors, and to all their [nstructions, Admont- 
tions and Exhortations: Be subject unto faithful Brethren, and to 
words of counsel and help from them: Ye younger, submit your selves 
unto the elder; and to that end, be clothed with humility. Lye under 
the Word and Will of Christ, as dispensed and conveyed to you by all 
his appointed Instruments in their respective places. Break not in upon 
the Lord’s Table (or upon the Priviledges of full Communion) without 
due qualification, and orderly admission thereunto, lest you eat and 
drink your own damnation. Le ordered, and take not upon you to 
order the affairs of Gods Family; that ts not the place of those who 
are yet but in the state of Initiation and Education in the Church of 
God. Carry tt in all things with a spirit of humility, modesty, sobriety 
and [xvi] fear, that our “soules may not weep in secret for your pride, 
and that God may not resist & reject you as a generation of his wrath. 
Oh that the Lord would pour out a spirit of Humiliation & Repent- 
ance upon all the younger sort in the Country, (yea & upon elder too, 
for our neglects) from Dan to Beersheba! OA/ that we might meet at 
Bochim, decause so many Canaanites of unsubdued, yea growing cor- 
ruptions are found among us! Let tt not be said, that when the jirst 
& best generation in New-Lingland were gathered to their fathers, 
_ there arose another generation after them that knew not the Lord. 
Behold, the Lord had a delight in your fathers to love them, and he 
hath chosen you their seed after them, Zo enjoy these Liberties & Op- 
portunities, as tt ts thts day: Circumcise therefore the fore-skin of 
your hearts, and be no more stiff-necked, du¢ yield your selves to 
the Lord, and to the Order of His Sanctuary, fo seek him, and wait 
on himin all his wayes with holy fear and trembling: for the Lord your 
God ts gracious and merciful, and will not turn away his face from 
you, tf you return unto him ; tf you seek him he will be Jound of you, 
SF tf you forsake him, he will cast you on Jor ever. 

We shall conclude, when we have given the Reader a short ac- 
count of the Work ensuing. The Propositions zz Answer to the 
first Question, were (after much discussion and consideration front 
the Word of God) Voted and Concluded by the Assembly in the par- 
ticular terms as they are here expressed. The Arguments then used 
Jor theiy Confirmation, bdezrg drawn up by some deputed thereunto, 
after they had been several times read and considered in the Assembly, 
were Voted and Consented to, as to the summe and substance thereof. 
The answer to the second Question zs here given with great brevity, 
partly because so much ts already said there-about in the foresaid 
Platform of Discipline, and partly by reason of great straits of time = 


RESULT OF THE SYNOD OF 1662 313 


But what is here presented was the joynt conclusion of the Synod. 
A Preface was desired by the Assembly to be prefixed by some ap- 
pointed thereunto, which ts here accordingly by them performed. 

Now the God of truth & peace guide us & all his people in the 
wayes, CP give us the fruits thereof; help us to feed his flock and his 
lambs, & to be ted by him as the sheep of his pasture, that when the 
chief-Shepherd shall appear, we may receive together a Crown of 
glory that fadeth not away, G& may enter into the joy of our Lord, as 
those that have netther despised his little ones, zor denied to be our 
Brother’s keeper: But having faithfully endeavoured to promote the 
continuation of his Kingdom, © Communion of his people, may 
Rest & Reign with all Saints in the kingdom of his glory: Unto 
whom be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages 
world without end. 


[x] THE ANSWER 
Of hire howdaVD OTHER 


MESSENGERS 
of the Churches, Assembled at Boston 
in the Year 1662, 
) 
The Questions Propounded to them by ORDER of the 
Honoured GENERAL COURT. 


Quest, 1. \ i i | 
Answ : FT° are the Subjects of Baptism? 

The Answer may be given in, the following propositions, briefly 
confirmed from the Scriptures. N 

1 They that according to Scripture, are Members of the Visible 
Church, are the subjects of Baptisme. 

2 Lhe Members of the Visible Church according to scripture, 
are Confederate visible Believers, in particular Churches, and their 
infant-seed, i. e. children in minority, whose next parents, one or 
both, are in Covenant. : 

3 Lhe Infant-seed of confederate visible Believers, are members 
of the same Church with their parents, and when grown up, are per- 
sonally under the watch, discipline and Government of that Church. 

zt 


314 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


4 These Adult persons, are not therefore to be admitted to full 
Communion, meerly because they are and continue |2| members, with- 
out such further qualifications, as the Word of God requireth ther- 
unto. 

5 Church-members who were admitted in minority, understana- 
ing the Doctrine of faith, and publickly professing thetr assent 
thereto; not scandalous in life, and solemnly owning the Covenant be- 
fore the Church, wherin they give up themselves and thetr children 
to the Lord, and subject themselves to the Government of Christ in 
the Church, their children are to be Baptised. 

6 Such Church-members, who either by death, or some other 
extraordinary Providence, have been inevitably hindred from publick 
acting as aforesaid, yet have gtven the Church cause, in judgment 
of charity, to look at them as so qualified, and such as had they been 
called thereunto, would have so acted, their children are to be Baptised. 

7 The members of Orthodox Churches, being sound in the 
faith, and not scandalous in life, and presenting due testimony 
thereof; these occastonally comming’ from one Church to another, may 
have their children Baptised in the church whither they come, by virtue 
of communion of churches: but tf they remove their habitation, they 
ought orderly to covenant and subject themselves to the Government of 
Christ in the church where they settle their abode, and so their children 
to be Baptised. Lt being the churches duty to receive such unto com- 
munton, so farr as they are regularly fit for the same. 

The Confirmation of these Propositions from the Scripture 
followeth. 

Proposition Lf irst. 

They that according to Scripture are members of the visible Church, 
are the subjects of Baptisme. 

The trueth hereof may appear by the following evidences from 
the word of God. 

1. When Christ saith, Go ye therefore and teach, or (as the Greek 
is) disciple all Nations, Baptising them, Mat. 28. 19 [3| he expres- 
seth the adequate subject of Baptisme, to be dzsciples, or discipled 
ones. But disciples there is the same with members of the visible 
Church: 

For the visible Church is Christs schoo/, wherein all the mem- 
bers stand related and subjected to him, as their Master and 
Teacher, and so are his scholars or disciples, and under his teaching, as 
verse 20. And it is that visible spiritual Kingdome of Christ, which he 
there from his Kingly power, vev: 18. sendeth them to set up and 


RESULT OF THE SYNOD OF 1662 315 


administer in ver: 19. the subjects whereof are under his Lawes 
and Government: verse 20. Which subjects (or members of that 
Kingdome 7. e. of the visible church) are termed disciples verse ro. 
Also in the Acts of the Apostles (the story of their accomplish- 
ment of that commission) dsczples are usually put for members of 
the visible church: Acts 1. 15. Ln the midst of the disciples: who 
with others added to them, are called the church, Acts 2: 47: 
The members whereof are again called disciples, Acts 6: 1, 2. .Acts 
9; 1, . . . against the disciples of the Lordi. e. against the church 
of God. 1 Cor.15 9 Gal 1.13 Acts 9 26 He assayed to joyn himself 
to the disciples. The disciples at Lystra, Lcontum and Antioch, Acts 
14 21, 22 are called the church in each of those places verse 23 So 
the church verse 27 the disciples verse 28. Acts 18. 22 the church at 
Ceosared, Acts) 21. 16° the’ azsceples of Cesarea: So Acts 18. 23 with 
chap. 15. 41. and Gal. 1. 2. Acts 18. 27 and chap. 20 1 with verse 17. 
28. From all which it appeareth that dzsczples in Mat. 28. 19 and 
members of the visible church, are termes equivalent: and dsczples 
being there by Christ himselfe made subjects of Baptism, it follows 
that the members of the visible Church are the subjects of 
baptisme. 

2. Baptisme is the seal of first entrance or admission into the 
visible church; as appeareth from those texts 1 Cor: 12: 13. Bafp- 
tised tnio one body, 1, e. our entrance into the body or church of 
Christ, is sealed by Baptisme: and om; 6. 3, 5; Gal. 3: 27. where 
it is shewed that Baptisme is the Sacrament of wzzon or of zngraft- 
ing into Christ the head, and consequently into the church his body 
& from the Apostles cdstant practise in baptising [4] persons upon 
their first comming in, or first giving up themselves to the Lord 
Sideeiem eac7s oP12)ic 16./15, 23. G18) 8. and im Acts 2) 47, 42, 
they were baptized at their first adding to the church, or admission 
into the Afostles fellowship, wherin they afterward continued. And 
from its answering unto circumcision, which was a seal of initiation 
or admission into the church; Hence it belongs to all and onely 
those that are entred into, that are within, or that are members 
of the visible chuch. 

3. They that according to Scripture are members of the vtstble 
Church, they are in Covenant. For it is the Covenant that consti- 
_tuteth the Church, Deut 29. 12, 13. They must enter znto covenant, 
that they might be established the people or Church ef God. Now, 
the initiatory seal is affixed to the Covenant, and appointed to run 
parallel therewith, Gen. 17. 7, 9, 10, II. SO circumcision was: and 
hence called “he covenant Gen. 17. 13. Acts 7. 8. and so Baptisme is, 


316 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


being in like manner annexed to ¢he promise or Covenant, Acts 2. 38, 
39. and being the seal that answereth to circumcision; Co/; 2. 11, 12. 
4. Christ doth Sanctifie and cleanse the Church by the washing of 
water, t.e. by Baptisme Aff. 5.25, 26. Therefore the whole Church 
and so all the members thereof (who are also said in Scripture to 
be Sanctified in Christ Jesus, 1 Cor: 1. 2.) are the subjects of Bap- 
tisme: And although it is the znzviszble church, unto the spiritual 
and, eternall good whereof, this and all other Ordinances lastly 
have respect, and which the place mentioned in “pf: 5. may ina 
special maner look unto, yet it is the wvzstble Church that is the next 
and immediate subject of the administration thereof. For the sub- 
ject of visible external ordinances to be administred by men, must 
needs be visible. And so the Apostles Baptized sundry persons, 
who were of the visible, but not of the invisible Church, as Simon 
Magus, Ananias and Sapphira, and others. And these are visibly 
Purchased and Sanctified by the bloud of Christ, the Bloud of the 
covenant, Acts 20, 28. Heb 10.29. Therefore the visible seal of the 
covenant and of cleansing by Christs bloud belongs to them. 

[5] 5. Zhe Circumcision ts often put for the whole Jewish Church 
or for the members of the visible Church under the Old Testament. 
Those within are expressed by [the circumcised |* and those with- 
out by [the uncircumcised.| Rom: 15.8. & 3.30. Eph: 2,11, Judg: 
14, 3. -8& 15, 18. 14$am; 14. 008 517.26,.36.. Jer..0025 oO eee 
by proportion Baptisme (which is our Gospel circumcision, Col: 2. 
r1, 12.) belongs to the whole visible Church under the new Testa- 
ment. Actual and personal circumcision was indeed proper to the 
males of old, females being but inclusively and virtually circum- 
cised, and so counted of the circumcision: but the Lord hath taken 
away that difference now, and appointed Baptisme to be personally 
applied to both sexess Acts: 8, 12..G° 16,415. Gal> 3 26. s5Gnen 
every particular member of the visible Church is now a subject of 
Baptisme. We conclude therefore that Baptisme pertaines to the 
whole visible Church, and to all and every one therein, and to no 
other. 

Proposition 2°, 

The members of the visible Church according to Scripture, are con- 
federate visible believers, tn particular Churches, and thetr tnfant-seed, 
i. e. children in minority, whose next parents, one or both, are in 
Covenant. 

Sundry particulars are comprised in this proposition, which 
wee may consider and confirme distinctly. 


1{ ] in original, 7 


RESULT OF THE SYNOD OF 1662 317 


Partic: 1. Adult persons who are members of the visible Church, 
are by rule confederate visible beleevers: Acts: 5. 14. believers were 
added to the Lord. The believing Corinthians were members of the 
m@urchetuere 475 18: 8) with 1 Cor. 1. 2. 12. 27... The’ inscrip- 
tions of the Epistles written to Churches, and calling the members 
thereof Saznts, and fazthfull, shew the same thing, “pA 1. 1. PAz t. 
fect 2. And that confederation, 2. ¢. coventing explicite or 
implicite, [the latter preserveth the essence of confederation, the 
former is duety and most desireable] is necessary to make one a 
member of the visible Church, appears. 1. Because the Church is 
constituted by Covenant: for there is [6] between Christ and the 
Church the mutuall engagement and relation of King and subjects, 
husband and spouse; this cannot be but by Covenant (internall, if 
you speak of the invisible Church, external of the visible) a church 
is a company that can say, God is our God and we are his people, 
this is from the covenant between God and them. Deut 29, 12, 13, 
Fizek: 16, 8. 3. [2] The church of the old Testament was the 
church of God éy covenant Gen: 17, Deut 29 and was reformed still 
Dyerenewino on the Covenant 2'¢/707 15, 12.°& 23, 16: & 34, 31 32: 
Veh: 9 38: Now the churches of the Gentiles, under the new Tes- 
tament stand upon the same basis or voot with the church of the 
Old Testament, & therefore are constituted by Covenant, as that 
Meee Nee ett. 17 lo. 477; 2 10, 12,5901 3:6, eb: 3: 10, 3.’ Bap- 
tisme enters us into the Church Sacramentally, z, e, by sealing the 
Covenant. The Covenant therefore is that which constitutes the 
Church and inferrs membership, and is the Vow in Laptisme com- 
monly spoken of. 

Partic: 2. The members of the vistble Church are such as are 
confederate in Particular Churches. It may be minded that we are 
here speaking of Members so stated in the visible Church, as that 
they are Subjects to whom Church ordinances may regularly be 
administred, and that according to ordinary dispensation. For 
were it graunted, that the Apostles and Evangelists did sometimes 
Baptize such, as were not Members of any Particular Church, yet 
their extraordinary office, large Power and commission renders 
them not imitable therein by ordinary Officers. For then they 
might Baptize in private without the presence of a Christian as- 
sembhie, as Philip did the EHunuch. But that in ordinary dispensa- 
tion the Members of the visible Church according to Scripture, are 
such as are Members of some particular Church, appeares, 1. Be- 
cause the visible beleever that professedly Covenants with God, 
doth therein give up himselfe to wait on God in all his ordinances, 


co 


31 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 

Deut 26: 17, 18. Math: 28,19, 20. But all the Ordinances of God 
are to be enjoyed onely in a particular Church, For how often do 
we find in the Scripture that they came fogether into one place (or 
met as a congregational particular Church) for the observation and 
enjoyment of the Ordinances. Acts: 2: 1, 44, 46.[7] & 4, 31: & 11. 
26,6120; 7, 41<CO7..5 4. OAT WS, 20> 338 CAaTA * 22a ee 
tle in his Epistles, writing to Sazzts or Beleevers, writes to them as 
in particular Churches. 1 Cor,122) Lphr isi: Phils ae ee 
2. And. when the story of the Acts speakes of Disciplessother 
places shew that those are understood to be Members of particular 
Churches, Acts 18, 23. with Gal: 1: 2. Acts 21 16. with Chap 18: 22. 
Acts 11, 26. & 14: 22, 23, 27, 28. All which shewes that thevsenia, 
ture acknowledgeth no settled orderly estate of visible beleevers 
in Covenant with God, but onely in particular Churches. 3. The 
members of the visible Church are Disciples, as was above Cleared: 
now Drsciples are under Dzescipline and liable to Church-censures: 
for they are stated subjects of Christs Laws and Government, JZat: 
28. 19, 20. but Church Government and censures are extant now 
in ordinary dispensation, onely in a particular Church. JZa¢t 18. 
je by OR ON) garg 

Partic: 3. The Infant-seed of confederate visible beleevers are also 
members of the visible Church. The truth of this is evident from the 
Scriptures and reasons following. 

Argum: 1. The covenant of Abraham as to the substance thereof, 
viz, that whereby God declares himselfe to be the God of the faithfull & 
thetr seed, Gen: 17. 7. continues under the Gospel,as appears. 1 Because 
the Beleeving inchurched Gentiles under the new Testament, do 
stand upon the same voot of covenanting Abraham: which the /ewes 
were broken off from, Rom 11, 16,17 18. 2 Because Abraham in 
regard of that Covenant was made a Father of many nations, Gen: 
17. 4, 5. even of Gentiles as well as Jewes, under New-Testament 
as well as Old, Rom: 4. 16 17. Gal 3, 29. 2, ¢,in Abraham as a 
patterne and root, God (not onely shewed how he Justifies the be- 
leever, Gal: 3, 6,-9. Rom: 4. but also) conveied that covenant to 
the faithfull and their seed in all nations, Zwk: 19. 9. If a Son of 
Abraham, then Salvation t, e: the Covenant dispensation, of Salva- 
tion is come to his house. 3. As that covenant was communicated 
to proselyte Gentiles under the Old Testament, so its communica- 
tion to the inchurched Gentiles under the new Testament is clearly 
held forth in diverse places Ga/: 3. 14 the blessing [8] of Abraham 
comprizeth both the internal benefits of Justification by faith &c: 
which the Apostle is there treating of; and the external dispensa- 


RESULT OF THE SYNOD OF 1662 319 


tion of Grace in the visible church to the faithfull & their seed, 
Gen: 28 4. but the whole Blessing of Abraham (and so the whole 
covenant) zs come upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. Eph: 2. 12, 
1g They had been strangers, but now were no more strangers from 
the covenants of promise, t, e, from the covenant of grace, which had 
been often renewed, especially with Abraham and the house of 
Israel, and had been in the externall dispensation of it, their pecul- 
lar portion, so that the Afphestans, who were a farr off, being now 
called and made nigh, v. 13-17. they have the promise or the Cove- 
nant of promise to them and to their Children, according to Acts: 
2, 39. and so are partakers of that Covenant of Abraham, that we 
are speaking of. 

Eph: 3,6. The inchurched Gentiles are put into the same 
inheritance for substance (both as to invisible & visible benefits, 
according to their respective conditions) are of the same body, and 
partakers of the same promise with the Jewes, the Children of Abra- 
hamyot old: Whe same may be gathered from Gem: 9, 27, Afat. 
8. 11, & 21, 43. 4. Sundry Scriptures which extend to Gospel- 
times do confirme the same interest to the seed of the faithful 
which is held forth in the covenant of Abraham, and consequently 
do confirme the continuance of that covenant. as Hxod: 20: 6. 
there in the sanction of a moral and perpetual Commandement, 
and that respecting Ordinances, the portion of the church, God 
declareth himself to be a God of mercy, to them that love him, and 
to their seed after them 7x ‘their generations: consonant to Gen: 
17. 7. compare herewith Psa/. 105. 8, 9 & Deut. 7. 9. 

Deut: 30. 6. The grace signified by cercumcision is there 
promised to Parents and children, importing the covenant to 
both, which circumcision sealed, Gez: 17. and that is a Gospel- 
promise, as the Apostles citing part of that context, as the voice 
of the Gospel, shewes Aom: 10, 6-8. with Deut: 30, 11-14. and 
it reacheth to the Jewes in the latter dayes, ver. 1-5. 

Isay: 65, 23. In the most Glorious Gospel-state of the 
church, ver. 17-19. the blessing of the Lord is the promised 
portion of the of-[9|spvzng or Children, as well as of the faithfull 
Ppentan sm Js2y A493, 40 [sa27 50. 20, .21,. Azek: 27. 25, 26. iat 
the future calling of the Jewes, which those texts have reference 
to, (Rom: 11. 26. Ezek: 37. 19-22, 23, 24.) their Children shall be 
under the promise or Covenant of special Grace to be conveyed 
to them in the Ordinances, /saz: 59. 21. and be subjects of David, 
tee Christ their, King Heck 37. 25. and have a| portion, in—his 
Sanctuary, vers 26. and this according to the tenor of the ancient 


320 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


covenant of Abraham, whereby God will be thetry God (viz. both of 
parents and Children) and they shall be his People, vers: 26, 27. 
Now although more abundant fruits of the Covenant may be 
seen in those times, and the Jewes then may have more abundant 
Grace given to the body of them to continue in the Covenant, 
yet the tenor and frame of the Covenant itselfe is one and the 
same, both to Jewes, and Gentiles under the New-Testament ; 
Gal: 3, 28. Coll: 3.11. Heb. 8.10). The house of Jsracl ieee 
Church of God, both among /ewes and Gentiles under the new 
Testament, have that Covenant made with them, the summ 
whereof is, / well be their God, and they shall be my people: which 
is a renewing of that Covenant of Abraham in Gen 17. (as the 
same is very often over in those termes renewed in Seripture: 
and is distinguished from the Law, Ga/: 3 16, 17. Heb 8. 9) 
wherein is implied Gods being @ God fo the seed as well as parents, 
and taking doth to be his People, though it be not expressed: 
even as it is often plainly implied in that expression of the Cov- 
enant in other places of Scriptures: Yeuv7, 20. 13) /e7s ote 
32. '38,'39) @ 24°97, 30 22, 20 hgee 240 a7 2 me ee 
writing of the Law in the heart, in Feb: 8: 10. is that heart circum- 
ciston Which Deut: 30. 6. extends both to parents and seed. And 
the terme, House of /srae/, doth according to Scripture-use fitly 
expresse and take in (especially as to the externall administration 
of the Covenant) both parents and Children: among both which 
are found that elect and saved number, that make up the invisi- 
ble Israel> compare: Jer» 13: 11.) .9) 260 /saz. 5) 7a 
Ezek: 39. 25. Neither may we exclude the J/east in age from 
the good of that promise, Heb 8: 11. (they being sometimes 
pointed to by that phrase, from the least |10| to the greatest, Jer. 
44. 12. with verse 7.) no more than the least in other respects ; 
compare /sa. 54. 13. 

In Acts 2. 39. at the passing of those Jews into New Testament 
Church-estate, the Lord is so far from repealing the Covenant-interest 
that was granted unto chzldren in the former Testament, or from 
making the children there losers by their Parents faith, that he 
doth expresly renew the old grant, and tells them that the promise 
or covenant (for the promise and the covenant are terms that do 
mutually infer each other; compare Act#s 3. 25. Gal 3. 16, 17, 18, 29. 
Rom. 4.16. Heb. 6 17,) ts to them and to their children: and the same 
is asserted to be the appointed portion of the far off Gentiles, 
when they should be called. By all which it appeareth that the 


RESULT OF THE SYNOD OF 1662 321 


covenant of Abraham, Gen. 17. 7. whereby God ts the God of the faith- 
Sull and thetr seed, continues under the Gospel. 

Now if the seed of the faithful be still in the covenant of 
Abraham, then they are members of the visible Church; 1. Because 
that covenant of Adraham, Gen. 17. 7. was properly church-cove- 
nant, or the covenant which God makes with his visible church, t. e. 
the covenant of grace considered in the external dispensation 
of it, and in the promises and priviledges that belong to that dis- 
pensation. For many were taken into that covenant, that were 
never of the zzvzszbfe church: and by that covenant, the family 
of Abraham, as also by the renewing thereof, the house of Israel 
afterward were established the visible church of God, Gen. 17. 
and Deut. 29. 12, 13. and from that covenant men might be broken 
Deer 71). tA, som. YI. 17, 19. and to that covénant, Czrcvm- 
ctston, the badg of church-membership, was annexed. Therefore 
the covenantees therein were & are church-members. 2. Because 
in that covenant, the seed are spoken of in terms describing or 
inferring church-membership, as well as their parents: for they 
have God for their God, and are his people, as well as the parents, 
Peay 7. With wew,. 20; 11, 137 They have the.covenant 
made wzth them, Deut 29: 14,15. and the covenant is said to be 
between God & them (between me & thee, and between thy seed after 
Pee oo ethe Hebrew: runs) Gen> 17 7. -They are also in that 
covenant appointed to be the subjects of the zzztatory seal of the 
covenant, [11] the seal of membership, Genz. 17:9, 10, 11. There- 
fore the seed are according to that covenant, members of the 
visible church, as well as their parents. 

Argum: 2. Such seed or children are federally holy, 1 Cor. 7. 14. 
The word [oly] as applied to any sort of persons, is never in Scrip- 
ture used in a lower sense than for federal or covenant-holiness, (the 
covenant-holiness of the visible Church;) but very often in that 
Some Or cus. 72 0. Crane. Sr 202190. G28 9: Axo; 
eee aio 24 Cr? 127), Komi? 16: So that to say they 
are foly in this sense, vzz. by covenant-relation and separation 
to God in his Church, is as much as to say, ¢hey are in the covenant 
of the visible church, or members of tt. | 

Argum: 3. From Mark to: 14, 15, 16: Mat. 19: 14: childrens 
membership in the visible Church, is either the next and immediate 
sense of those words of Christ, Of such ts the kingdome of heaven; 
and so the kingdome of heaven, or of God, is not rarely used in other 
Scriptures to express the visible church, or church-estate. Jat: 
25: 1. & 21: 43: & 8.11, 12: or it evidently follows from any 


322 THF HALF-WAY COVENANT 


other sense that can rationally be given of the words. For those 
may not be denied a place and portion in the weszble church, whom 
Christ affirms to have a portion in the kzxzgdome either of zuviszble 
grace, or of eternal glory: Nor do any in ordinary course pass into 
the Kingdome of Glory hereafter, but through the Kingdome of 
Grace in the visible Church here. Adde also, that Christ there 
graciously invites and calls “tile children to him, is greatly dis- 
pleased with those that would hinder them, asserts them, notwith- 
standing their infancy, to be exemplary in recezving the kingdome 
of God, embraceth them zz his arms, and Oblesseth them: all which 
shews Christ’s dear affection to, and owning of the children of 
the Church, as a part of his kingdome; whom we therefore may 
not disown, lest we incurre his displeasure, as the Disciples did. 

Argum: 4. Such seed or children are disciples according to Mat 28: 
Ig: aS appears, 1. Because subjects of Christ’s Kingdome are equiv- 
alent with disciples there, as the frame of that Text shews, verse 18, 
1g, 20. but such children are subjects of Christ’s Kingdome, or of 
the kingdome of heaven, Mat: 19:14: In the discipling of all [12] 
Nations intended in Jaz. 28. 19. the kingdome of God, which had 
been the portion of the Jews, was communicated to the Gentiles, 
according to Jaz. 21. 43. But in the kingdome of God these chil- 
dren have an interest or portion, JZark 10.14. 2. The Apostles 
in accomplishing that commission, JZa¢. 28. 19. did disciple some 
children, vzz. the children of discipled parents, Acts 2. 39. & 15. 
ro, They are there called and accounted adsczples, whom the false 
teachers would have brought under ¢he yoke of circumcision after 
the manner of Moses, verse 1,5. But many of those were children; 
Lixod. 12, 48, Acts 21. 21. Lydia and her houshold, the Jaylor and 
all his, were discipled and baptized, Acts 16. 15, 31, 33. aul at 
Corinth took in the children into the holy school of Christ, 1 Cor 
7, 14. 3, such children delong to Christ; for he calls ) theme 
him as his, to receive his blessing, AZark 10. 13--16. They are 
to be received in his Name, Wark g. 37. Luke 9 48. They have 
a part in the Lord, /Josh,,22, 24 25, therefore they arcsec 
for to belong to Christ,is to be a@ aisciple of Christ, Mark 9, 41. 
with Jat, 10. 42. Now if they be disciples, then they are mem- 
bers of the visible church, as from the equivalency of those terms 
was before shewed. 

Argum: 5. The whole current and harmony of Scripture shews, 
that ever since there was a visible church on earth, the children thereof 
have by the Lords appointment been a part of it. So it was in the Old, 
and it is and shall be so in the New Testament. ve, the mother 


RESULT OF THE SYNOD OF 1662 323 


of all living, hath a promise made Gen. 3. 15. not only of Christ 
the head-seed, but through him also of a Church-seed, to proceed 
from her in a continual lineal succession, which should contin- 
ually be at visible enmity with, and stand at a distance, or be 
separated from the seed of the Serpent. Under that promise made 
to Hve and her seed, the children of Adam are born, and are a 
part of the Church in Adam’s family: even Cain was so, Gen. 
4. 1, 3. till cast out of the presence of God therein, verse 14. being 
now manifestly one of the seed of the Serpent, 1 John 3. 12. and 
so becoming the father of a wicked unchurched race. But then 
God appointed unto Eve another, viz: Seth, in whom to continue 
the line of her’ Church-seed, Gen 4. 25. How it did continue in 
[13] his seed zx their generations, Genes: 5" sheweth. Hence 
the children of the Church are called Sons of God, (which is as 
much as members of the visible Church) in contradistinction to 
the daughters of men, Gen. 6. 2. If righteous Noah be taken into the 
Ark (then the onely preserving place of the Church) his chz/dren 
are taken in with him, Genz. 7. 1 though one of them, vz. Ham, 
after proved degenerate and wicked; but till he so appears, he 
is continued in the Church with his Brethren: So Gen. g. 25, 26, 27. 
as the race of Ham or his son Canaan (parent and children) are 
cursed; SO Shem (parent and children) zs d/essed, and continued in 
the place of blessing, the Church: as /aphet¢ also, or /aphe?’s pos- 
terity (still parent and children) shall in time be brought in. The 
holy line mentioned in Gen. 11. 10-26 shews how the Church con- 
tinued in ¢he seed of Shem from him unto Abraham. When that 
race grew degenerate, Josh. 24. 2. then God called Abraham out 
of his countrey, and from his kindred, and established his covenant 
with him, which still took in parents and children, Gez. 17. 7, 9. 
mOnit did after in the house of Israel, Deut 29. 11, 12, 13. and 
when any eminent restauration or establishment is promised to 


the Church, ¢he children thereof are still taken in, as sharers in 


Piemodtle./.52/) 102,10, 28.0 60. 35, 30. Jexem'; 32: 38, 39. fsa: 
Geeeromi0. 23, Now, when Christ comes to set.up the Gospel- 
administration of his Church in the New Testament, under the 
term of the kingdome of heaven, Mat: 3: 2. @ 11. 11. he is so far 
from taking away children’s portion and membership therein, 
that himself asserts it, Mat: 19:14. The children of the Gentile, 
but now Jdelieving Corinthians, are holy, 1 Cor: 7:14. The Apostle 
writing to the Churches of Aphesus and Colosse, speaks to children, 
Bepenpatt thercol, “4: 6: 1. Col. 3: 20, The inchurched Aa. 
mans, and other Gentiles, stand on the root of covenanting Abraham, 


324 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


~ 


and in the Ofve or visible Church, they and their children, till 
broken off (as the Jews were) by positive unbelief, or rejection 
of Christ, his Truth or Government, Rom. 11 13, 16, 17,-22. The 
children of the Jews, when they shall be called, shall de as afore- 
time in Church-estate, er: 30. 20. with 31. 1 Azekzel 37. 25-28. 
From all which it appears, that the [14] series or whole frame 
and current of Scripture-expressions, doth hold forth ‘re continu- 
ance of childrens membership in the visible church from the begin- 
ning to the end of the world. | 

Partic: 4. The seed or children who become members together 
with their Parents (7. ec. by means of their parents covenanting) are 
children tn minority. ‘This appears, 1. Because such children are 
holy by their parents covenanting, who would e/se de unclean, 1 Cor. 
7.14 but they would not else necessarily be unclean, if they were 
adult; for then they might act for themselves, and so be holy by 
their personal covenanting: Neither on the other hand would they 
necessarily be oly, if adult, (as he asserts the children there to be) 
‘for they might continue Pagans: Therefore the Apostle intends 
onely infants or children in minority. 2. It is a principle that car- 
ries evidence of light and reason with it, as to all transactions, Civil 
and Ecclesiastical, that zf a man be of age he should answer for him- 
self, John 9. 21. They that are come to years of discretion, so as 
to have knowledge and understanding, fit to act in a matter of that 
nature, are to covenant by their own personal act, Veh. 10. 28, 29. 
fsa. 445. 3. They that are regularly taken in with their parents, 
are reputed to be visible entertainers of the covenant, and avouchers 
of God to be their God, Deut: 26) 17, 16. with em 26a 
But if adult children should, without regard to their own personal 
act, be taken in with their parents, then some might be reputed 
entertainers, that are manifest rejecters of the covenant. for so an 
adult son or daughter of a godly parent may be. 

Partic: 5. tis requisite to the membership of children, that the 
next parents, one or both, be in covenant, For although, after-genera- 
tions have no small benefit by their pious Ancestors, who derive 
federal holiness to their succeeding generations, in case they 
keep their standing in the covenant, and be not apostates 
from it; yet the piety of Ancestors sufficeth not, unless the 
next parent continue in covenant, Rom. 11. 22. 1. Because if the 
next parent be cut or broken off, the following seed are broken 
off also, Exod: 20. 5. Rom. 11 17, 19, 20. as the Gentile believing 
parents and children were taken in; so the Jews, parents and chil- 
dren, were then [15] broken off. 2. One of the parents must be a 


RESULT OF THE SYNOD OF 1662 325 


believer, or else the children are unclean, 1 Cor. 7.14. 3. If children 
may be accounted members and baptized, though the next parents 
be not in covenant, then the Church should be bound to baptize 
those whom she can have zo power over, nor hope concerning, to see 
them brought up in the true Christian Religion, and under the 
Ordinances: For the next parents being wicked, and not in coven- 
ant, may carry away and bring up their children é serve other Gods. 
4. If we stop not at the next parent, but grant that Ancestors may, 
notwithstanding the apostacy of the next parents, convey member- 
ship unto children, then we should want a ground where to stop, 
and then all the children on earth should have right to member- 
ship and Baptism, 
Proposition 3°. 

The Infant-seed of confederate visible Believers, are members of 
the same Church with thetr parents, and when grown up, are person- 
ally under the Watch, Discipline and Government of that Church. 

1. Lhat they are members of the same Church with their parents, 
appears; 1. Because so were /saac and /shmael of Abrahams Family- 
church, and the children of the /ews and Proselytes of Zsraels Na- 
tional Church: and there is the same reason for cAz/dren now to be 
of the same Congregational Church with their parents. Christ’s care 
for children, and the scope of the Covenant, as to obligation unto 
Order and Government, is as great now, as then. 2. Either they 
are members of the same Church with their parents, or of some 
other Church, or Non-members: But neither of the latter; there- 
fore the former. That they are not Non-members, was before 
proved in Propos. 2. Pariic. 3. and if not members of the same 
Church with their parents, then of no other. For if there be not 
reason sufficient to state them members of that Church, where 
their parents have covenanted for them, and where ordinarily they 
are baptized and do inhabit, then much less is there reason to 
make them members of any other: and so they will be members 
of no particular Church at all; and it was be-[16|fore shewed, that 
there is no ordinary and orderly standing estate of Church-mem- 
bers but in some particular Church. 3. Zhe same covenant-act ts 
accounted the act of parent and childe: but the parents covenanting 
rendred himself a member of this particular Church; Therefore so 
it renders the childe also. How can children come in with and by 
their parents, and yet come into a Church, wherein and whereof 
their parents are not, so as that they should be of one Church, and 
the parents of another? 4. Children are in ax orderly and regular 
state: for they are in that state, wherein the order of Gods Cove- 


326 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


nant, and his institution therein, hath placed them; they being 
members by vertue of the Covenant of God. To say their stand- 
ing is disorderly, would be to impute disorder to the order of Gods 
Covenant, or irregularity to the Rule. Now all will grant it to be 
most orderly and regular, that every Christian be a member in 
some particular Church, and in that particular Church, where his 
regular habitation is; which to children usually is, where their 
parents are. If the Rule call them to remove, then their member- 
ship ought orderly to be translated to the Church, whither they 
remove. Again, order requires that the childe, and the power of 
government over the childe, should go together. It would d77ng shame 
and confusion for the childe to be from under government, Prov. 
29. 15. and Parental and Ecclesiastical government concurring, do 
mutually help and strengthen each other. Hence the parent and the 
childe must be members of the same Church; unless the childe be 
by some special providence so removed, as that some other person 
hath the power over him. 

2. That when these children are grown up, they are personally un- 
der the Watch, Discipline and Government of that Church, is manifest: 
for, 1. Children were under Patriarchal and Mosaical discipline of 
old, Gen, 18 19. & 21. 7, 10, 12. Gal. 5.3, and: therefore sumder 
Congregational discipline now. 2. They are zzthin the Church, or 
members thereof, (as hath been, and after will be further proved) 
and therefore subject to Church-judicature, 1 Cor. 5.12. 3. They 
are disciples, and therefore under adsczpline in Christ’s school, ALatth. 
28.19. 20. 4. They are [17] 2 Church-covenant, therefore subject 
to Church-power, Gen: 17. 7. with Chap. 18, 19. 5. They are sué- 
jects of the kingdome of Christ, and therefore under the laws and 
government of his Kingdome, ek. 37 25, 26. 6. Laptism leaves 
the baptized (of which number these children are) in a state of 
subjection to the authoritative teaching of Christ’s Ministers, and to 
the observation of all his commandments, Mat. 28, 19, 20. and there- 
fore ina state of subjection unto Discipline. 7. Elders are charged 
to take heed unto, and to feed (2. e. both to teach and rule, compare 
Lizck. 34. 3, 4) all the flock or Church, over which the holy Ghost hath 
made them overseers, Acts 20. 28. That children are a part of the 
flock, was before proved: and so Paz/ accounts them, writing to 
the same flock or Church of Aphesus, Eph. 6.1. 8. Otherwise Irre- 
ligion and Apostacy would inevitably break into Churches, and no 
Church-way left by Christ to prevent or heal the same: which 
would also bring many Church-members under that dreadful judge- 
ment of being /e¢ alone in their wickedness, Hosea 4. 16, 17. 


RESULT OF THE SYNOD OF 1662 327 


th 


Proposition 4". 


These Adult persons are not therefore to be admitted to full Com- 
munition, meerly because they are and continue members, without such 
Surther qualifications, as the Word of God requireth thereunto. 

mneearutn iereor is plain, 1. From 1 Cor. 17. 28, 29. where 
it is required, that such as come to the Lords Supper, be able zo 
examine themselves, and to discern the Lords body; else they will eat 
and drink unworthily, and eat and drink damnation or judgement, 
to themselves, when they partake of this Ordinance. But meer 
membership is separable from such ability to examine one’s self, 
and discern the Lords body: as in the children of the covenant 
that grow up to years is too often seen. 2. In the Old Testa- 
ment, though men did continue members of the Church, yet for 
ceremonial uncleanness they were to be kept from full commun- 
ipimonetie holyithines, Lew? 7. 20;'21) Numb:'9.6, 77." 19, 13, 20. 
yea and the Prvests and Porters in the Old Testament had [18] 
special charge committed to them, that men should not partake 
tn all the holy things, unless duely qualified for the same, notwith- 
standing their membership, 2 Chron. 23. 19. Ezekiel 22. 26, & 44. 7, 
8, 9, 23. and therefore much more in these times, where moral fitness 
and spiritual qualifications are wanting, membership alone is not suff- 
cient for full communion. More was required to adult persons eating 
the Passeover, then meer membership: therefore so there is now to 
the Lords Supper. For they were to eat to the Lord, Exodus 12. 14. 
which is expounded in 2 Chron. 30. where, keeping the Passeover to 
the Lord, verse 5. imports and requires exercising Repentance, verse 
6, 7. their actual giving up themselves to the Lord, verse 8. heart- 
preparation for it, verse 19. and holy rejoycing before the Lord, verse 
(ieee seewune like in) H2r7 6, 21,22; 3. Though all ‘members 
of the Church are subjects of Baptism, they and their children, 
yet all members may not partake of the Lords Supper, as is 
further manifest from the different nature of Baptism and the 
Lords Supper. Baptism firstly and properly seals covenant-holiness, 
as circumcision did, Gen. 17. Church-membershif, Rom: 15. 8. 
planting into Christ, Rom. 6. and so members, as such, are the sub- 
jects of Baptism, J/atth. 28. 19. But the Lords Supper is the 
Sacrament of growth in Christ, and of special-communion with him 
1 Cor. 10. 16. which supposeth a@ special renewal and exercise of 
Faith and Repentance in those that partake of that Ordinance. 
Now if persons, even when adult, may be and continue mem- 
bers, and yet be debarred from the Lords Supper, until meet 
qualifications for the same do appear in them; then may they 


328 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


also (until like qualifications) be debarred from that power of 
Voting in the Church, which pertains to Males in full communion. 
It seems not rational that those who are not themselves fit for 
all Ordinances, should have such an influence referring to all 
Ordinances, as Voting in Election of Officers, Admission and 
Censure of Members, doth import. For how can they, who are 
not able to examine and judge themselves, be thought able and fit 
to discern and judge in the weighty affairs of the house of God? 
IoC Tis 26, 90 eWithi dt, Gore coat 

[19] | 

Proposition 5". 

Church-members who were admitted in minority, understanding the 
Doctrine of faith, and publickly professing their assent thereto ; not 
scandalous tn life, and solemnly owning the Covenant before the Church, 
wherein they give up themselves and their Children to the Lord, and sub- 


ject themselves to the Government of Christ in the Church, their Children 
are to be Laptized. 


This is evident from the Arguments following. 

Argum: 1. These children are partakers of that which ts the main 
ground of baptizing any children whatsoever, and netther the parents nor 
the children do put tn any barre to hinder it. 

1. Lhat they partake of that which ts the main ground of baptizing 
any, is Clear; Because interest in the Covenant is the main ground 
of title to Baptism, and this these children have. 1. Lnterest in the 
Covenant ts the main ground of title to Baptism; for so in the Old 
Testament this was the ground of title to Circumcision, Gez 17. 7, 
g, Io, 11. to which Baptism now answers, Co/. 2. 11, 12. and in Acts 
2. 38, 39 they are on this ground exhorted to de baptized, because 
the promise or covenant was to them and to their children, ‘That a 
member, or one in covenant, as such, is the subject of Baptism, was. 
further cleared before in Propos.1. 2, That these children have tn- 
terest in the covenant, appears; Because 7f the parent be in the cove- 
nant, the childe ts also: for the covenant is to parents and their seed 
in theiy generations, Gen: 17. 7,9. The promise is to you and to 
your children, Acts 2.39. If the parent stands in the Church, so 
doth the childe, among the Gentiles now, as well as among the 
Jews of old, Rom: 11.16, 20, 21, 22. It is unheard of in Scripture, 
that the progress of the covenant stops at the infant-childe. But 
the parents tn question are in covenant, as appears, 1. Because they 
were once in covenant, and never since discovenanted. If they had 
not once been in covenant, they had not warrantably been baptized; 
and they are so still, except in some way of God they have been 


RESULT OF THE SYNOD OF 1662 329 


discovenanted, cast out, or cut off from their covenant-relation, 
which these have not been: neither are persons once in covenant, 
broken off from [20] it according to Scripture, save for notorious 
sin, and incorrigibleness therein, Rom 11. 20. which is not the case 
of these parents. 2. Because the tenor of the covenant is Zo the 
faithfull and their seed after them in thetr generations, Gen: 17.7 
even to a thousand generations, t. e. conditionally, provided that the 
parents successively do continue to be keepers of the covenant, 
Exod: 20.6. Deut: 7: 9,11 Psalm 105: 8. which the parents in ques- 
tion are, because they are not (in Scripture-account in this case) 
forsakers or rejecters of the God and Covenant of their fathers: see 
eee eee Oe 20y02e ALAS Ly) 1520! /2.Cron. 72 22° Deur: 7: 10. 

2. That these parents in question do not putin any barre to 
hinder their children from Baptism, is plain from the words of the 
Proposition, wherein they are described to be such as wnderstand 
the doctrine of Faith, and publickly profess thetr assent thereto: there- 
fore they put not in any barre of gross Ignorance, Atheism, Heresie 
or Infidelity : Also they are ot scandalous in life, but solemnly own 
the covenant before the Church; therefore they put not in any barre 
of Profaneness, or Wickedness, or Apostacy from the covenant, 
whereinto they entred in minority. That the infant-children in 
question do themselves put any barre, none will imagine. 

 Argum: 2, The children of the parents in question are ezther 
children of the covenant, or strangers from the covenant, Eph: 2: 12. 
either holy or unclean, 1 Cor: 7: 14 either wethzn the Church or with- 
out 1 Cor: 5: 12, either such as have God for their God, or without 
God in the world, Eph: 2: 12. But he that considers the Proposition 
will not affirm ¢e /a/ter concerning these children: and fhe former 
being granted, infers their right to Baptism. 

Argum: 3. Todeny the Proposition, would be, 1. To straiten 
the grace of Christ in the Gospel-dispensation, and to make the 
Church in New Testament-times in a worse case, relating to their 
children successively, then were the Jews of old. 2. To render the 
children of the Jews when they shall be called, in a worse condition 
then under the legal administration; contrary to Jer: 30: 20. Ezekiel” 
aye 20. 3. Lo deny thé application of the initiatory Seal to 
such as regularly stand in the Church and Co-[21]venant, to whom 
the AZosaical dispensation, nay the first institution in the covenant 
of Abraham, appointed it to be applied, Gen: 17: 9, 10. John 7 22, 
23. 4. To break Gods covenant by denying the initiatory Seal to 
those that are in covenant, Gen: 17: 9, 10, 14. 

Argum: 4. as Rt visible Believers, though but tn the lowest 


330 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


degree such, are to have their children baptized; witness the practice of 
John Baptist and the Apostles, who baptized persons upon the frst 
beginning of their Christianity. But the parents in question are 
confederate visible Believers, at least in some degree: For, 1. Charity 
may observe in them sundry positive Arguments for it ; witness the 
terms of the Proposition, and nothing evident against it. 2. Chz/- 
drenof the godly qualified but as the persons in the Proposition, are 
said to be fatthfull, Tit: 1. 6. 3. Children of the Covenant (as 
the Parents in question are) have frequently the beginning of 
grace wrought in them in younger years, as Scripture and experi- 
ence shews: Instance, /oseph, Samuel, David, Solomon, Abiyah, 
Josiah, Daniel, John Baptist, and Timothy. WHence thts sort of per- 
sons showing nothing to the contrary, are in charity, or to 
Ecclesiastical reputation, visible Believers. 4. They that are 
regularly in the Church (as the Parents in question be) are vwzszble 
Saints in the account of Scripture (which is the account of truth :) 
for the Church ts, in Scripture-account, a company of Saznts, 1 Cor: 
14: 33. & 1. 2., 5. Being in covenant and Dbantized, they siave 
Faith and Repentance zndefinitely given to them in the Promise, and 
sealed up in Baptism, Deut. 30: 6. which continues valid, and so 
a valid testimony for them, while they do not reject it. Yet it doth 
not necessarily follow, that these persons are immediately fit for 
the Lords Supper; because though they are zz a latitude of expres- 
ston to be accounted visible Believers, or zz numero fidelium, even 
as infants in covenant are, yet they may want that ability to ex- 
amine themselves, and that special exercise of Faith, which is 
requisite to that Ordinance ; as was said upon Profos. 4" 

Argum: 5. The denial of Baptism to the children in question 
hath a dangerous tendency to Irreligion and Apostacy; because it 
denies them, and [22] so the children of the Church successively, 
to have any part tn the Lord; which is the way to make them cease 
Jrom fearing the Lord, Josh 22. 24, 25, 27. For if they have a part 
in the Lord, t. e. a portion in Israel, and so in the Lord the God of 
Israel, then they are in the Church, or members of it, and so to be 
baptized, according to Propos. 1. The owning of the children of 
those that successively continue in covenant to be @ part of the 
Church, is so far from being destructive to the purity and prosper- 
ity of the Church, and of Religion therein, (as some conceive) that 
this imputation belongs to the contrary Tenet. To seek to be 
more pure then the Rule, will ever end in impurity in the issue. 
God hath so framed his covenant, and consequently the constitu- 
tion of his Church thereby, as to design a continuation and propa- 


RESULT OF THE SYNOD OF 1662 . 33 


gation of his Kingdome therein, from one generation to another. 
Hence the covenant runs fo ws and to our seed after us in their gen- 
erations. To keep in the line, and under the influence and efficacy 
of this covenant of God, is the true way to the Churches glory: 
To cut it off and disavow it, cuts off the posterity of Szoz, & hin- 
ders it from being (as in the most glorious times it shall be) az 
eternal excellency, and the joy.of many generations. ‘This progress of 
the covenant establisheth the Church, Deut. 29 13. Jer. 30.20. The 
contrary therefore doth disestablish it. This obigeth and advan- 
tageth to the conveyance of Religion down to after-generations ; 
the care whereof is strictly commanded, and highly approved by 
tie lord, Psa/378. 4,5,6,7. Gen. 18.19. -This continues a nursery 
still in Christ’s Orchard or Vineyard, /sa.5.1,7. the contrary neg- 
lects that, and so lets the whole run to ruine. Surely God was an 
holy God, and loved the purity and glory of the Church in the Old 
Testament: but then he went in this way of a successive progress 
of the covenant to that end, /ev. 13. 11. If some did then, or do 
now decline to wnbelief and apostacy, that doth not make “fhe 
faith of God in his covenant of none effect, or the advantage of in- 
terest therein inconsiderable : yea the more holy, reforming and 
glorious that the times are or shall be, the more eminently is a 
successive continuation and propagation of the Church therein 
designed, promised and intended, /sa. 60.15 & 59. 21. Ezek. 37. 
Gareeton, 2S) 102) 1071-125. 1 fer. 32. 39. 

[23] Argum: 6. The parents in question are personal, tmme- 
diate, and yet-continuing menbers of the Church. 

1. That they are personal members, or members in their own 
persons, appears, 1. Because they are personally holy, 1 Cor. 7 14: 
not parents onely, but [your children]* are holy. 2. They are per- 
sonally baptized, or have had Baptism, the seal of membership, 
applied to their own persons: which being regularly done, is a 
divine testimony that they are in their own persons members of 
the Church. 3. They are personally under discipline, and liable to 
Church-censures in their own persons ; vide Propos. 3. 4. They 
are personally (by means of the covenant) in a visible state of sal- 
vation. To say they are not members in their own persons, but in 
their parents, would be as if one should say, They are saved in 
their parents, and not in their own persons. 5. When they commit 
eniguity, they personally break the covenant; therefore are person- 
Paivettieitos/c7 211, 2,16. L2ek 16, 


1[ ] in original. 


332 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


2. By the like Reasons it appears that children are zmmediate 
members, aS to the essence of membership, (¢. e. that they them- 
selves in their own persons are the immediate subjects of this 
adjunct of Church-membership) though they come to it by 
means of their parents covenanting. For as touching that dis- 
tinction of mediate and immediate, as applied to membership, (which 
some urge) we are to distinguish 1. between the efficient and 
the essence of membership: 2. between the instrumental efficient 
or means thereof, which is the parents profession and covenant- 
ing; and the principal efficient, which is divine Institution. They 
may be said to be mediate (or rather mediately) members, as they 
become members éy means of their parents covenanting, as an 
instrumental cause thereof: but that doth nothing vary or 
diminish ¢he essence of their membership. For divine Institution 
giveth or granteth a real and personal membership unto them, as 
well as unto their parents, and maketh the parent a publick person, 
and so his act theirs to that end. Hence the essence of member- 
ship, 2. e. Covenant-interest, or a place and portion within the visible 
Church, is really, properly, personally and immediately the portion 
of the childe by divine gift and grant, Josh. 22. 25, 27. their children 
[24] ave a part in the Lord, as well as themselves. A part in the 
Lord there, and Church-membership (or membership in Israel) are 
terms equivalent. Now ¢he children there, and a part in the Lord, 
are Subject and Adjunct, which nothing comes between, so as to 
sever the Adjunct from the Subject; therefore they are zmmediate 
subjects of that Adjunct, or zmmediate members, Again, their visible 
ingraffing into Christ the head, and so into the Church his body, is 
sealed in their Baptism: but in ingraffing nothing comes betwixt 
the graft and the stock: Their union is immediate; hence they are 
immediately inserted into the visible Church, or immediate mem- 
bers there of. The ZzttHle children in Deut. 29. 11. were personally 
and immediately a part of the people of God, or members of the 
Church of Israel, as well as the parents. To be in covenant, or 
to be a covenantee, is the formalis ratio of a Church-member. If one 
come to be in covenant one way, and another in another, but both 
are in covenant or covenantees (7. ¢. parties with whom the cove- 
nant is made, and whom God takes into covenant) as the children 
here are, Gen. 17: 7, 8 then both are in their own persons?tie 
immediate subjects of the formalts ratio of membership, and so 
immediate members. To act in covenanting, is but the instru- 
mental means of membership, and yet children are not without this 
neither. For the act of the parent (their publick person) is 


RESULT OF THE SYNOD OF 1662 333 


accounted theirs, and they are said to enter tnto covenant, Deut. 29. 1, 
12. So that what is it that children want unto an actual, compleat, 
proper, absolute and immediate membership? (so far as these 
terms may with any propriety or pertinécy be applied to the mat- 
ter in hand.) Is it Covenant-interest, which is the formatlis ratio of 
membership? No, they are in covenant. Is it divine grant and in- 
stitution, which is the principal effictent? No: he hath clearly de- 
clared himself, that he grants unto the children of his people a 
portion in his Church, and appoints them to be members thereof. 
Is it ax act of covenanting, which is the znstrumental means? No: 
they have this also reputatively by divine appointment, making the 
parent a publick person, and accounting them to covenant in his 
covenanting. <A different manner and means of conveying the 
covenant to us, or of [25] making us members, doth not make a 
different sort of membership. JVe now are as truly, personally 
and immediately members of the body of faln mankinde, and by 
nature heirs of the condemnation pertaining thereto, as Adam was, 
though he came to be so by “zs own personal act, and we by the act 
of our publick person. If a Prince give such Lands to a man and 
his heirs successively, while they continue loyal; the following 
heir is a true and immediate owner of that Land, and may be per- 
sonally dis-inherited, if disloyal, as well as his father before him. 
A member is one that is according to Rule (or according to 
Divine Institution) zwztizn the visible Church. Thus the child is 
properly, & personally or immediately. Paw? casts all men into 
two sorts, those wzthzm and those wethout, 1. e. members and non- 
members, 1 Cor. 5.12. It seems he knew of no such distinction of 
mediate and immediate, as put a medium between these two. Odzect. 
If children be compleat and immediate members as their parents 
are, then they shall immediately have all Church-priviledges, as 
their parents have, without any further act or qualification. Ans. 
It followeth not. All priviledges that belong to members, as such, 
do belong to the children as well as the parents: But all Church- 
priviledges do not so. A member as such, (or all members) may 
not partake of all priviledges ; but they are to make progress both 
in memberly duties and priviledges, as their age, capacity and 
qualifications do fit them for the same. 

3. Lhat their membership still continues in adult age, and ceaseth 
not with thetr infancy, appears, 1. Because in Scripture persons are 
broken off, onely for notorious sin, or incorrigible impenitency and 
unbelief, not for growing up to adult age, Rom. 11. 20. 2. The 
Jew-children ctrcumctsed did not cease to be members by growing 


334 . THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


up, but continued in the Church, and were by virtue of their mem- 
bership received in infancy, bound unto various duties, and in 
special unto those solemn personal professions that pertained to 
adult members, not as then entring into @ new membership, but as 
making a progress in memberly duties, Deut. 26. 2-10, & 16, 16, 17 
with Gal. 5. 3. 3. Those relations of dorn-servants and subjects, 
which the Scripture makes use of to set forth the state of children 
in the Church by, Zev. 25 41, 42. “ek, 37. 25. dO not, (aSealeige 
know) cease with infancy, but continue in adult age. Whence also 
it follows, that one special end of [26] membership received in in- 
fancy, is to leave persons under engagement to service and subjec- 
tion to Christ in his Church, when grown up, when they are fittest 
for it, and have most need of it. 4. There is no ordinary way of 
cessation of membership but by Death, Dismtssion, Excommunica- 
tion, or Dissolution of the Society: none of which is the case of the 
persons in question. 5. Either they are when adult, members or 
non-members: if non-members, then a person admitted a member, 
and sealed by Baptism, not cast out, or deserving so to be, may 
(the Church whereof he was still remaining) become a non-mem- 
ber, and out of the Church, and of the unclean world; which the 
Scripture acknowledgeth not. Now if the parent stand member 
of the Church, the childe is a member also: For now “e root zs holy, 
therefore so are the branches, Rom. 11. 16. 1 Cor. 7. 14. The parent 
is in covenant, therefore so is the childe, Gem. 17. 7. and if the 
childe be a member of the visible Church, then he is a subject of 
Baptism, according to Profos 1. 


Proposition 6. 

Such Church-members, who either by death, or some other extra- 
ordinary Providence, have been tnevitably hindred from publick act- 
ing as aforesaid, yet have given the Church cause in Judgment of 
charity, to look at them as so qualified, and such as had they been 
called thereunto, would have so acted, their children are to be Baptized. 

This is manifest. 1. Because the main foundation of the right 
of the childe to priviledge remains, vzz: Gods institution, and the 
force of his covenant carrying it to the generations of such as con- 
tinue keepers of the covenant, z. e. not visible breakers of it. By 
virtue of which zzstitution and covenant. the children in question are 
members, and their membership being distinct from the parents 
membership, ceaseth not, but continues notwithstanding the parents 
decease or necessary absence: and if members, then subjects of 
Baptism. 2. Because the parents not doing what is required in the 


RESULT OF THE SYNOD OF 1662 335 


jifth Proposition, is through want of opportunity; which is not to 
be imputed as their guilt so as to bea barre to the childes privi- 
ledge. 3. God reckoneth that as done in his service, to which 
there was a manifest desire and endeavour, albeit the acting of it 
was hindred; as in David to build the Temple, 1 Aznugs 8 18, 19. 
in Abraham to sacrifice his Son, (ed. 11. 17. according to that in 2 
Cor. 8. 12. Where [27] ts a willing minde, tt ts accepted according to 
what a man hath, and not according to what he hath not: which is 
true of this Church-duty, as well as of that of Alms. It is an 
usual phrase with the Ancients to style such and such Martyrs 7x 
voto, and baptized zz voto, because there was no want of desire that 
way, though their desire was not actually accomplished. 4. The 
terms of the Proposition import that in charity, that is here done 
interpretively, which is mentioned to be done in the fifth proposition 
expresly. 
Proposition 7". 


The members of Orthodox Churches, being sound in the Faith, 
and not scandalous in life, and presenting due testimony thereof; these 
occasionally comming from one Church to another, may have their 
children Baptized in the church whither they come, by virtue of Com- 
munition of Churches: but if they remove their habitation, they ought 
orderly to covenant and subject themselves to the Government of Christ 
in the Church where they settle their abode, and so their children to be 
Baptized. It being the churches duty to receive such unto communion, 
so farre as they are regularly fit for the same. 

r. Such members of other Churches as are here described, occa- 
stonally coming from one Church to another, their children are to be 
baptized in the Church whither they come, by virtue of Communion of 
Churches: 1. Because he that is regularly a member of a true par- 
ticular Church, is a subject of Baptism, according to Propos. 1% & 
27. But the children of the parents here described are such, ac- 
cording to Proposition 5" & 6". therefore they are meet and lawful 
subjects of Baptism, or have right to be baptized. And Communion 
of Churches infers such acts as this is, vz: to baptize a fit subject 
of Baptism, though a member of another Church, when the same is 
orderly desired. (See Platform of Discipline, chap. 15. sect. 4) 
For look as every Church hath a double consideration, v7zz. 1. Of 
its own constitution and communion within it self; 2. Of that com- 
munion which it holds and ought to maintain with other Churches: 
So the Officer (the Pastor or Teacher) thereof, is there set, 1. To 
administer to this Church constantly ; 2, To do acts of Communion 


336 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


occastonally, (viz: such as belong to his Office, as Baptizing doth) 
respecting the members of other Churches, with whom this Church 
holds or ought to hold communion. 

2. To refuse Communion with a true Church zm /aw-[28] 
full and pious actions, is unlawful, and justly accounted Schis- 
matical. For if the Church be true, Christ holdeth some com- 
munion with it; therefore so must we: but if we will not have 
communion with it in those acts that are good and pious, then 
in none at all. Total separation from a true Church, is unlawful : 
But to deny communion in good actions, is to make a total sep- 
aration. Now to baptize a fit subject, as is the childe in question, 
is @ lawfull and pious action, and therefore dy virtue of Communion 
of Churches, in the case mentioned to be attended. And if Baptism 
lawfully administred, may and ought to be recezved by us for our 
children, in another true Church, where Providence so casts us, as 
that we cannot have it in our own, (as doubtless it may and ought 
to be:) then also we may and ought in like case to aspense Baptism, 
when desired, 4o a meet and lawfull subject, being a member of 
another Church. ‘To deny or refuse either of these, would be an 
unjustifiable refusing of Communion of Churches, and tending to 
sinful separation. 

2. [3] Such as remove thetr .habitation, ought orderly to cove- 
nant and subject themselves to the Government of Christ in the Church, 
where they settle thetr abode, and so thetr children to be baptized ; 
1. Because the regularly baptized are disciples, and under the 
Discipline and Government of Christ: But they that are absolutely 
removed from the Church whereof they were, so as to be unca- 
pable of being under Discipline there, shall be under it no where, 
if not in the church where they inhabit. They that would have 
Church-priviledges, ought to be wuder Church-power: But these will 
be under no Church-power, but as /ambs in a large place, if not 
under it there, where their setled abode is. 2. Every Christian 
ought to covenant for himself and his children, or professedly 
to give up himself and his to the Lord and that zz the way of his 
Ordinances, Deut. 26 17 & 12: 5. and explicite covenanting is a 
duty, especially where we are called to it, and have opportunity 
for it: nor can they well be said to covenant zwplicitely, that 
do explicitely refuse a professed covenanting, when called there- 
unto. And especially this covenanting is a duty, when we would 
partake of such a Church-priviledge, as Baptism for our children 
is. But the parents in question will now be professed covenanters 
no where, if not in the Church where their fixed habitation is. 


RESULT OF THE SYNOD OF 1662 337 


Therefore they ought orderly to covenant there, and so thetr children 
[29] zo be baptized. 3. To refuse covenanting and subjection to 
Christ’s Government in the Church where they live, being so re- 
moved, as to be utterly uncapable of it elsewhere, would be a walking 
disorderly, and would too much savour of profaneness and separation 
~ and hence to administer Baptism to the children of such as stand in 
that way, would be to administer Christ’s Ordinances to such as are 
in a way of sin and disorder ; which ought not tobe, 2 Zhess. 3.6 1 
Chron. 15. 13. and would be contrary to that Rule, 1 Cor. 14. 40. 
Let all things be done decently and in order. 


Quest. II Flether according to the Word of God there ought 
to be a Consociation of Churches, and what should 
be the manner of tt ? 


Answ. The answer may be briefly given in the. Propositions 
following. 


1. Lvery church or particular Congregation of visible Saints in Gos- 
pel-order, being furnished with a Presbytery, at least with a Teaching 
Lilder, and walking together in truth and peace, hath recetved from the Lord 
Jesus full power and authority Ecclestastical within tt self, regularly to 
administer all the Ordinances of Christ, and ts not under any other Ecclest- 
astical Jurisdiction whatsoever. For to such a Church Christ hath 
given the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven, that what they binde or loose 
on earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven, Matt. 16. 19. & 18, 17, 18. 
Elders are ordained in every Church, Acts 14. 23. Zit. 1.5. and are 
therein authorized officially to administer in the Word, Prayer, Sacra- 
Meter ensiires,7a7.23. 16, 20) Acts 6).4.°1) Cor. 4.1. & 5. 4) 92: 
Peron 26.0 1/075. 173, 5) . Lhe reproving of the Church of 
Corinth, and of the Aszan Churches severally, imports they had power, 
each of them within themselves, to reform the abuses that were 
amongst them, 1 Cor. 5. Mev. 2 14, 20. Hence it follows, that Con- 
sociation of Churches is not to hinder the exercise of this power, but 
by counsel from the Word of God to direct and strengthen the same 
upon all just occasions, 

2. Lhe Churches of Christ do stand tn a ststerly relation each to 


338 THE HALF-WAY COVENANT 


other, Cant. 8. 8., deing united in the same Faith and Order, Eph. 4. 5. 
Col. 2.5. zo walk by the same Rule, Phil. 3. 16. 2” the exercise of the 
[30] same Ordinances for the same ends, Eph. 4 11, 12, 13. 1 Cor. 16, 1. 
under one and the same political Head, the Lord Jesus Christ, Eph. 1. 
22, 23 & 4.5. Rev. 2.1. Which Union infers a Communion sutable 
thereto. 

3. Communion of Churches ts the faithfull tmprovement of the 
gifts of Christ bestowed upon them for his service and glory, and their 
mutuall good and edification, according to capacity and opportunity. 1 Pet. 
4,10, 11; 1'Cor, 12, 4, 7.8 rot 24% "1 Cor3! 2127. ean ee 
Romer 15: Galvowto 

4. <Acts of Communion of Churches are such as these: 

1. Hearty Care and Prayer one for another, 2 Cor. 11, 28. Cant. 
8:8: “Rom, wae; Collos.11, 9.) Epn-Gais: 

2. Toafford Relief by communication of their Gifts in Teneporal 
or Spiritual necessities. Rom. 15. 26, 27. Acts 11, 22; 20us2meams 
ra ACB Beale 

3. Zo maintain Unity and Peace, by giving account one to 
another of their publick actions, when it ts orderly destred, Acts 11. 
2, 3, 4-18.- Josh. 22. 13, 21, 202.91 Gor 10322070 Gousise ee 
one another in their regular Administrations ; as in special by a con- 
current testimony against persons justly censured, Acts 15. 41. & 16. 
Ay 5 ie2- line Avy heel néssy aes 

4. Zo seek and accept Help from, and give Flelp unto each other: 


1. Ln case of Divisions and Contentions, whereby the peace of any Church 
7s disturbed, Acts 15. 2. 

2. In matters of more then ordinary importance, [Prov. 24. 6. 15. & 22] a 
Ordination, Translation, and Deposition of Elders, and such like, 1 Tim. 5. 22. 

3. Ln doubtful and difficult Questions and Controversies, Doctrinal or Prac- 
tical, that may arise, Acts 15 2, 6. 

4. for the rectifying of mal-Administrations, and healing of Errours and 
Scandals, that are unhealed among themselves, 3 John ver: 9, 10. 2 Cor. 2. 6-11. 
I Cor. 15. Rew; 22 14, 18, 10.2) Cor. 12020, Bie 1902.) SC ercies nae 
need of help in like cases, as well as Churches then. Christ’s care is still for whole 
Churches, as well as for particular persons ; and Apostles being now ceased, there 
remains the duty of brotherly love, and mutual care and helpfulness, incumbent 
upon Churches, especially Elders for that end. 


[31] 5. Le love and faithfulness to take notice of the Troubles 
and Difficulties, Errours and Scandals of another Church, and to 
administer help (when the case manifestly calls for it) though they 
should so neglect their own good and duty, as not to seek it, Exod. 23. 
AL TL Vaca Lee Ly 

6. Zo Admontsh one another when there ts need and cause for tt: 
and after due means with patience used, to withdraw from a Church or 
peccant party therein, obstinately persisting in Lrrour or Scandal; as in 
the Platform of Discipline (chap. 15. sect. 2. partic. 3.) is more at large 
declared!) (Gal; 211-14. %2 37 2e58.03,..0. POM 10.817, 


RESULT OF THE SYNOD OF 1662 339 


5. Consoctation of Churches, ts their mutual and solemn Agreement 
to exercise communion in such acts, as aforesaid, amongst themselves, with 
special reference to those Churches, which by providence are planted in a 
conventent vicinity, though with liberty reserved without offence, to make 
use of others, as the nature of the case, or the advantage of opportunity 
may lead thereunto. 

6. Zhe Churches of Christ in this Countrey having so good op- 
portunity for it, zt 7s meet to be commended to them, as their duty, 
thus to consociate. For 1, Communion of Churches being com- 
manded, and Consociation being but an Agreement to practise it, 
this must needs be a duty also, Psal. 119. 106. Mehem. 9.28. 2. 
Paul an Apostle sought with much labour the conference, concur- 
rence, and right hand of fellowship of other Apostles: and ordinary 
Elders and Churches have not less need each of other, to prevent 
their running in vain, Gal. 2. 2,6,9. 3. Those general Scripture- 
rules touching the need and use of counsel and help in weighty 
cases, concern all Societies and Polities, Ecclesistical as well as 
ie 70d. Tita GY TS 225 G20 18).6".24; 6. Lceles, 4..9, 10, 12. 
4. The pattern in Acts 15 holds forth a warrant for Councils, which 
may be greater or lesser, as the matter shall require. 5. Concur- 
rence and Communion of Churches in Gospel times, is not 
@eseurely held forth tn./s@ 109. 23, 24, 25. Zeph. 3.9. 1 Cor. 11. 61, & 
Pi eeen 30, 6. Viicre hath constantly been in these Churches a 
profession of Communion, in giving the right hand of fellowship at 
the gathering of Churches, and Ordination of Elders: Which im- 
porteth a Consociation, and obligeth to the practice [32] thereof. 
Without which we should also want an expedient and sufficient 
Cure for emergent Church-difficulties and Differences: with the 
want whereof our Way is charged, but unjustly, if this part of the 
Doctrine thereof were duely practised. 

7. The manner of the Churches agreement herein, or entring tnto 
this Consoctation, may be by each Church’s open consenting unto the things 
here declared in Answer to this 2%. Question, as also to what ts said 
thereabout in chap. 15. & 16. of the Platform of Discipline, wth refer- 
ence to other Churches tn this Colony & Countrey, as in Propos. 5". zs 
before expressed. 

8. The manner of exercising and practising that Communion, 
which this consent or agreement specially tendeth unto, may be, by making 
wse occastonally of Elders or able Brethren of other Churches; or by the 
more solemn Meetings of both Eiders and Messengers in lesser or greater 
Councils, as the matter shall requtre. 


FINS. 


XII 
THE SAVOY. DECLARATION ess 


EDITIONS AND REPRINTS 


I. A | Declaration | of the | Faith and Order | Owned and practised in the | 
Congregational Churches | in | England; | Agreed upon and consented unto | By 
their | Elders and Messengers | in | Their Meeting at the Savoy, October 12. 
1658. | | | London: | Printed by John Field, and are to be sold by | 
John Allen at the Sun Rising in Pauls | Church-yard, 1658. 4° pp. [xxx], 64. 

Four editions appeared in 1659, viz. 

II. 1. The edition of 1658 with the date on the title-page altered to 1659, but 
without other changes. 

III. 2. An edition with the same title page as No. II., and by the same pub- 
lisher, but re-set in parts, and with minor variations.! 

IV. 3. Asmall print edition, Losdon | Printed for D. L. And are to be soldin 
Paul's Church-yvard, Fleet- | Street, and Westminster-Hall, 1659." 

V. 4. Another small print edition, Zondon, | Printed by J. P. and are to be ‘sold 
in S Pauls Church- | yard, Fleet-Street, and at Westminster-Hall, | 1659. 

VI. A Latin translation, by Prof. Johannes Hoornbeek of Leyden, appeared at 
Utrecht in 1662 under the title Confessio nuper edita Independentium seu Congre- 
gationalium in Anglia.® 

Other editions appeared in English as follows,4 


NITS 8677, o%o<. 

VIII. 1688, 18°. 

Tee 720.450: 

X. Ipswich, 1745, 8°. 
XI. Oswestry, 1812, 8°, 











The revived interest in the history of Congregationalism has led to several 
reprints, more or less complete. 

I. In Hanbury, Alemorials, III : 517-548 ; entire. 

II. By Dr. A. H. Quint, Congregational Quarterly, VIII : 241-261, 341-344, 
(July and October 1866); without the preface. Dr. Quint gives a full list of vari- 
ations from the Westminster Confession and the Massachusetts Confession of 1680. 





1 This edition may be distinguished from No. II. by the presence, on an unnumbered page 
between pp. 53 and 54, of a list of books for sale. In Nos. I. and II. this page is blank, and is 
reckoned in the paging of the book. In No. III. the title to Ch. V. p. ro is inverted, in Nos. I. and 
I]. it is in the usual order. Many differences of punctuation may also be found. 

2 This is the text used by Dr. Quint in the Cong. Quart., viii: pp. 241-261, 341-344 ; and 
Prof. Schaff in the 7rs¢ edition of his Creeds, III, p. 707. 

3 See Neal, Puritans, ed. New York, 1844, II: 178; Hanbury, Memortals, IIl: 517; 
Schaff, Creeds, 1: 820. 

+I am indebted for my information regarding Nos. VII-XI to William Orme’s Memozrs 
of . « « John Owen, in Works of John Owen, London, 1826, I: 183. 


( 340) 


ITS LITERATURE 341 


III. By Prof. Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, IIl: 707-729 ; the preface 
and the portions relating to church government are given in full, but only those sec- 
tions of the Declaration of Faith which differ from the Westminster Confession, to 
be found earlier in the same volume. 

SOURCES 

Peck, Destderata Curiosa, London 1779, II: 501-512; contains sixteen letters 
relating to the summons of the Synod. 
LITERATURE. 

Neal, History of the Puritans, ed. New York, 1844, II: 177-180; Bogue & 
Bennett, History of Dissenters, London, 1808, 2.4 ed. 1833, I : 181, 182; Orme, 
Memoirs of . . . John Owen, in Works of John Owen, London, 1826, I: 
172-183; Price, History of Protestant Nonconformity in England, London, 1838, 
II ; 619-623; Hanbury, Aemorials, II]: 515-548; Fletcher, History of , 
Independency in England, London, 1862, IV : 177-179; Schaff, Creeds of Christen- 
dom, New York, 1877, I: 829-833; Masson, Life of John Milton, London, 1859-80, 
V: 343-345; Dexter, Congregationalism, as seen in its Literature, pp. 661-663; 
Stoughton, History of Religion in England, ed. London, 1881, Il: 488, 489. Some 
points of interest regarding this Declaration, and its relations to the New England 
Churches, may be found in Lawrence, Our Declaration of Faith and the Confession, 
in Congregational Quarterly, VIII : 173-190. 


T was the desire of the Puritans, from the opening of the 
| Long Parliament, that there should be a general council of 
representatives of the English Church to consider and recom- 
mend such changes as seemed necessary, in the opinion of a 
great party in the nation, for that Church’s further reformation. 
This wish found expression in the Grand Remonstrance; and 
bills authorizing such an assembly were enacted in June, Octo- 
ber, and December, 1642, but failed for lack of the king’s assent.’ 
But the increasing danger of the political situation, owing to the 
unexpected strength shown by the king after the outbreak of the 
civil war, induced Parliament to call the desired assembly by its 
Own unsupported ordinance, on June 12, 1643,—a result doubt- 
less hastened by the knowledge that such a council would be 
acceptable to the Scotch, whose military aid seemed indispensa- 
ble. The composition of this celebrated body was determined 
by the Parliamentary call, which summoned one hundred and 
forty-nine persons’? by name to a share in its proceedings; and, 
in spite of the prohibition of the Westminster Assembly by the 
king, sixty-nine of those invited gathered on the opening day, 





1 See Dexter, Cong. as seen, pp. 645-648. 
2 Really 150, see ante, p. 136. 


342 SHH SAVOY DECLARATION 


July 1, 1643. Its average attendance was from sixty to eighty. 
Of the membership of the ecclesiastical council thus constituted 
the vast majority were, of course, jure divino Presbyterians, since 
Presbyterianism was not only the form of church polity approved — 
in Scotland, but that to which the greater portion of the Puri- 
tans of England looked with hope at the outbreak of the civil 
war. Parliament, however, intended to be catholic in its call, 
and therefore invited certain Episcopalians’ (though scarce any 
came), a few Erastians, like the scholars, Selden, Lightfoot, and 
Coleman, and, what attracts our chief attention, nearly a dozen 
Congregationalists,—all, even the Episcopalians summoned, being 
affiliated more or less closely with the great Puritan party. 

Ten or eleven Congregationalists, or Independents? as they 
were more usually called, could have no decisive influence among 
so many Presbyterians, and of this number only about five could 
be accounted at all times thorough-going opponents of Presby- 
terian designs. These were Thomas Goodwin and Philip Nye, 
the most powerful debaters on the Congregational side, William 
Bridge, Jeremiah Burroughes, and Sidrach Simpson. They had 
all suffered persecution under Laud, and had all gone to Holland, 
where they had ministered to English congregations at Rotter- 
dam,* and Arnheim;* and had returned to take positions of influ- 
ence in England as soon as the tyranny of Laud was overthrown. 
With them were associated more or less intimately in the defense 
of Independency in the Assembly, William Carter of London, 
Joseph Caryl of Lincoln’s Inn, William Green of Pentecomb, 
William Greenhill of Stepney, Peter Sterry of London, John Bond 
of the Savoy, London, and (possibly) Anthony Burgess of Sut- 
ton. But though few in numbers, the Congregationalists in the 
Assembly were the peers of any of its membership in power of 
debate. They commanded respect much beyond that due to 





1 A good account of these parties is given by Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 1: 734-747. 

2 On the use of this name, compare Fletcher, Hist. . . . af Independency, London, 
1862, IV: 23, 24. 

3 Bridge and Burroughes as pastor and teacher. 

4 Goodwin, 

5 See Baillie, Letters and Journals, ed. Edinburgh, 1841-2, II: r10; Fletcher, A/zs¢. . 
Independency, 1V: 23, 24; Schaff, Creeds,1: 737. Of the laymen in the Assemb!y, Lord Say 
and Sele, Lord Wharton, and Sir Harry Vane, sided with the Independents. 


CONGREGATIONALISTS AT WESTMINSTER 343 


their numerical weight." Their disagreement with the Presby- 
terians was not on points of doctrine; the struggle between the 
two parties so unequally matched was over polity; and, later, 
over the. degree of toleration to be granted to the minor differ- 
ences of religious sects as well.” 

_ Yet, while there can be no doubt as to the keenness and co- 
gency of the Congregational champions in argument, it is hardly 
conceivable that they would have been listened to and answered 
with such patience by the great men of the Presbyterian ma- 
jority, had it not early become evident that the progress of the 
war was resulting in the rapid spread of Independency in Eng- 
land. It was the consciousness that the Congregational debat- 
ers represented a party of unknown but increasing power in Par- 
liament and the army that made the Presbyterian leaders bear 
with their arguments and objections.®? It was the same con- 
sciousness on the part of the Congregational members that made 
them oppose and delay the Presbyterian models of Church-gov- 
ernment, and, as early as January, 1644, led Goodwin, Nye, Bridge, 
Burroughes, and Simpson, to appeal from the Assembly to the 
Parliament which created it, and from which it derived all. its 
right to be. This appeal, the <Afologeticall Narration,* though 
claiming to be nothing more than a request that the government 
would not send the adherents of Congregationalism into a second 
exile,° was really an attempt to transfer the solution of the ques- 
tion between Presbyterianism and Congregationalism from the 
Assembly to a higher tribunal,—the opinion of Parliament and 
of the nation. As such, it was in some measure successful. Nine 


months after its publication, Cromwell, fresh from his victory at 





1 The work of the Independents in the Assembly is well described in Masson, L7/e of Johu 
Milton, Ill. passim. See also Dexter, Cong. as seen, pp. 656, 657. 

2 ** Moreover, if in all matters of Doctrzne, we [Congregationalists] were not as Orthodoxe 
ia our judgements as our brethren [the Presbyterians] themselves, we would never have exposed 
our selves to this tryall and hazard of discovery in this Assembly. . . . But it is sufficiently 
known that in all Joints of doctrine . . . our judgements have still concurred with the great- 
est part of our brethren, neither do we know wherein we have dissented,” Afologeticall Nar- 
vation, pp. 28, 29. Regarding the growth of a spirit of toleration among the Independents in the 
Assembly see Fletcher, H7zst. . . . Independency, IV: 29-74. 

3 Compare Masson, J7z/ton, IIL: 20-26. 

4 An Afpologeticall Narration, Humbly Submitted to the Honourable Houses of Parlia- 
ment, London, 1643 (really January, 1644, see on date Dexter, Cozg. as seen, p. 659.) 

5 Apol. Narration, pp. 30, 31. 


344 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


Marston Moor, and well known to be a Congregationalist in sym- 
pathy, induced Parliament so far to recognize the rights of the 
Independents as to refer the general question of toleration to its 
most important committee, that of the “Two Kingdoms.’’* 

But, spite of all they could do in debate, the weight of num- 
bers gave the victory to the Presbyterians in the Assembly point 
by point. And something beside numbers favored the Presby- 
terians also. They were ready with the offer of a definite plan 
of church government. The Independents were not. They op 
posed the Presbyterian system in detail, but they could not be 
induced to present their own views in full systematic form. The 
Assembly justly complained of this unwillingness.? But the rea- 
son of it is not far to seek. The power behind the Congrega- 
tionalists in the Assembly was the constantly growing ascend- 
ency of the Independents in the army. ‘These army Independents 
were many shades of opinion,*® and for their diversities of view 
the leaders, like Cromwell, claimed large toleration. ‘To come 
out with a definite statement of their own theories was to ex- 
pose the Congregationalists in the Assembly to the loss of a 
support that was very desirable, for though many were willing 
to unite with them in opposition to the proposed enforcement 
of Presbyterian uniformity, the diversity of opinion among the 
Independents in the army was too manifest to make union in 
anything but dissent probable. ‘That this was the reason of the 





1 See Masson, J/z/ton, IIL: 168,169. The composition of the committee is given, /d7d., p. 41. 

2 See A Copy of a Remonstrance lately delivered tn to the Assembly. By Thomas Good- 
win. lerem: Burroughs. William Greenhill. William Bridge. Philip Nie. Sidrach Stimson. 
and William Carter. Declaring the Grounds and Reasons of their declining to bring into the 
Assembly, their Modell of Church-Government. London 1645. The Assembly answered the 
same year. The Ansvver Of the Assembly of Divines . . . Unto the Reasons given in to 
this Assembly by the Dissenting Brethren [etc.] London 1645. They say: ‘‘ The Assembly hath 
still great and just cause to expect a report from these Brethren: Those of their way having pub- 
lished in Print that these Brethren are willing to dozt. ‘The Assembly having Ordered it, the 
Brethren having held the Assembly six moneths in expectation of it. . . . Vpon which con- 
siderations we think . . . that they have some other cause then what they pretend to, and 
that something lies behinde the curtain. . . . Possibly they cannot agree among themselves 
(for it is easier to agree in dissenting, then in affirming) or possibly if they seven can agree, yet 
some other of their Brethren in the City, to whom it may be the Model was communicated, did 
not like it; or if so, yet possibly the Brethren might foresee, that if this Model should be pub- 
lished, there are some who at present are a strength to them, and expect shelter from them, may 
disgust it,’”’ p. 24. 

% Some account of the sects in the army may be found in Masson, J/7z/ton, III: 84-91, 137-159. 


CONGREGATIONALISM IN POWER 345 


refusal of the Congregationalists to formulate their views in the 
Assembly, the Presbyterians not obscurely hinted.’ But these 
Congregationalists had conceptions definite enough, though they 
did not deem it politic to define them in their own words. They 
published and circulated with approval the works of the lead- 
ers of New England, like Cotton’s Keyes,?and Way of the Churches, 
they assiduously propagated Congregational sentiments and op- 
posed Presbyterian positions ; but they did not expose themselves 
to condemnation in the Assembly, and the loss of needed, if 
somewhat uncertain, supporters without, by presenting their sys- 
tem in concrete and elaborated form. 

But a few years brought great changes. The rise of the 
army to the real control in England, the falling away of the 
Scotch and their defeat in the second civil war,’? the successive 
expulsions of the Presbyterians from Parliament,* the execution 
of the king, and the establishment of a Commonwealth under 
the control of Cromwell, removed the Congregationalists from 
the position of suppliants for Parliamentary toleration and placed 
them at least on a political equality with the Presbyterians ; 
while their leaders enjoyed a greater degree of personal favor 
with Cromwell and the heads of his government than those of 
any other religious party. They were Cromwell’s chaplains,® and 
the more distinguished Independents received educational and 
ecclesiastical livings at the hands of the government, the tenure 
of which, though agreeable, was not always very consistent with 
Congregational principles.” Such favor from the State, though 
it did not make Independency the State religion, placed the Con- 


1 Compare p. 344, note 2. 

2 It bears the inscription on the title page, ‘‘ Published By THo. Goopvvin and Pui.ip Nyer.’”’ 

3 Battle of Preston, Aug. 18, 1648. 

4 The dismissal of the eleven members, 1647, and ‘‘ Pride’s Purge,’’ Dec. 6, 1648, brought Par-- 
liament wholly under the control of the army. 

5 Of Cromwell’s chaplains Peter Sterry and John Howe were English Congregationalists, 
while Hugh Peter and William Hooke had had ministerial experience in New England, the one: 
at Salem, the other at New Haven. William Bridge was offered the chaplaincy of the Council of 
State in Nov. 1649; but declined. 

6 Thomas Goodwin became Pres. Magdalen Coll., Oxford: John Owen was Dean of 
Christ Church and Vice-Chancellor at Oxford; Philip Nye, Rector of St. Bartholomew’s, Lon- 
don; Joseph Caryl, Rector of St. Mary’s Magnus. To accept the last named positions implied, 
in some degree at least, the acknowledgment of a National Church and of a right of appointment 
other than the will of the congregation. 


23 


340 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


gregationalists in a position where they naturally took a more 
conservative attitude than when they were simply struggling for 
a right to live, and were glad to accept aid from whatever source. 
Their numbers were multiplying, their preachers were respected, 
it seemed in every way desirable that they should now define 
their position doctrinally and ecclesiastically. Such action would 
bring them greater union, it would mark their separation from 
the various sectaries who sheltered themselves under the Inde- 
pendent name, and it was now open to none of the dangers which 
had threatened when Presbyterianism was all-powerful. The lead- 
ing Congregationalists determined to have a Confession of their 
own; they would, without making their creed a test to which 
they required rigid conformity, bear testimony to their faith, and 
enjoy the fraternal communion to the existence of which no pub- 
lic declarations of Congregational ministers and churches in Eng- 
land had heretofore witnessed.’ 

Thus far we can trace the probable course of events which 
led to the gathering at the Savoy, but unfortunately, as one of 
the most learned of modern English Congregationalists has ob- 
served, “very much obscurity rests” on the preparations for that 
Assembly.’ It seems certain, however, that the motion toward 
a Synod went out from the Independent divines in Cromwell’s 
neighborhood, and probably took the form of a petition.* The 
Protector was naturally reluctant to summon a meeting which 
might possibly increase that friction between Presbyterians 
and Congregationalists which was the most threatening feature 
of the political situation,* but he gave his consent and allowed 
the proposed Synod to have the countenance, in an informal 
way, of his government. The call for the Assembly did not run 
in the name of the Commonwealth. It was not official in the 
same sense as the summons of the Westminster Assembly by 
Parliament; but the letters went forth from Henry Scobell, clerk , 


1 See Preface to Savoy Declaration, pp. iii, iv, xiii. 

2 Dr. John Stoughton, H7story of Religion in England, 11: 488, 480. 

3 Such is the view of Neal, Echard, Orme, Stoughton, Dexter, Schaff, Fletcher, etc. It is 
probably true, though it would be grateful if documents should be discovered illuminating this 
obscure part of the story. 

4 Neal, Hist. of the Puritans, ed. New York, 1844, II: 178, 


ORIGIN OF THE SYNOD 347 


of the Council of State, and were recognized by their recipients 
as having governmental approval. The first summons was for a 
meeting preparatory to the Synod. On June 15, 1658, Scobell 
wrote to the ministers of London and vicinity as follows :’ 


‘Sir, the meeting of the elders of the congregationall churches in & about 
London, is appointed at Mr. Griffith’s? on Monday next, at two of the clocke in the 
afternoone, where you are desired to be present. I am, 


Sir, yours to love & serve you in the Lord, 
Hen. Scobell.” 
June XV. MDCLVIII. 


This preliminary meeting took place on the day appointed, 
June 21, and by its authorization letters were sent by Mr. Griffith, 
“inthename . . . of the congregationall elders in & about 
London,”* to leading Congregational ministers in the several 
counties where such churches were to be found, asking them to 
notify the churches in their respective neighborhoods to be 
present by pastors and delegates at the Savoy*in London on 
Wednesday, the 29th of September following. These letters, 
which were sent out on or about the zoth of August,’ are not 
known to me to have been preserved, but the replies, returned 
not to Griffith but to Scobell, exist to the number of fifteen. An 


example or two may suffice :° 


‘*Sir, Two dayes ago I received a letter from Mr. Griffith, giving notice of a 
meeting that is to be of pastours or messengers of the severall congregationall 
churches on xxix of September next at the Savoy, & of some other things.?’ I am 
therein directed to signify the receipt of it by the first post to you ; which is the 
end of theis few lines from, 

Sir, your humble servant, 
Samuel Basnet, teacher of a church in Coventry. 


1 Peck, Desiderata Curztosa, London, 1779, II: sor. 
2 George Griffith, minister at the Charter House, London, 1648-1661. See Wilson, W7s¢. 
Dissenting Churches and Meeting Houses tn London, London, 1808, Il: 516-518. 

3 Reply in Peck, Destderata Curzosa, I1: 510. 

4 The Savoy Palace was erected on the bank of the Thames by Peter, earl of Savoy and 
Richmond, in 1245. It passed through various vicissitudes, being the place of confinement of 
John II. of France, when a prisoner, 1357-63 ; John of Gaunt later made it his palace. It had been 
at one time a convent, and in 1505 was made a hospital by Henry VII. In Cromwell’s time it 
sheltered various court officers; and it had the reputation of being a meeting place for Dissenters, 
and for representatives of the Continental Protestant churches. 

5 The replies, returned immediately on the receipt of the letters, are dated, with the excep- 
tion of two belated epistles, between August 24 and Sept. 4. The letter to William Bridge at Yar- 
mouth was dated Aug. 20. 

6 Peck, Destderata Curtosa, 11: 508, 509. 

7 The third point of Griffith’s letter related to ‘subscription’? —see Reply of Thomas 
Gilbert, Peck, II: 509, I am unable to say what was intended. 


348 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


Theis to the honourable Henery Scobell esq ; clerk of his hignes privy councill 
at Whitehall, present.” 

‘“ Worthy Sir, I have lately received a letter from Mr. Griffith, in name of 
the brethren at London, whereby I am desired to certify you of the receipt thereof. 
This is then only to let you understand, that on the xxvi. of August I received his 
letters dated the xx. of August. And I shall take care that coppyes of the letters be 
sent unto all the churches in our countye;! continueing 

your servant in the gospel of Christ Jesus, 
Yarmouth, Aug. xxviii. : William Bridge.” 
MDCLVIII. 


In a similar way William Hughes of Marlborough promised to 
notify the churches of Wiltshire, Bankes Anderson of Boston and 
Edward Reyner of Lincoln those of Lincolnshire, Isaac Loeffs of 
Shenley the congregations of Hertfordshire, Thomas Gilbert of 
Edgemond those of Salop, Samuel Crossman of Sudbury those of 
Suffolk, Anthony Palmer and Carn[elms?] Helme of Bourton-on- 
the-water the churches of Gloucestershire, Thomas Palmer of 
Aston-upon-Trent those of Derby and Nottinghamshire, John 
Player of Canterbury those of Kent, while Vavasor Powell under- 
took to inform the churches of Wales. Most of the answers, 
though brief, are cordial, one or two are apparently guarded, and 
one slightly suspicious that some political design might be lurking 
behind the proposed Synod,’ but, speaking in general, the letters 
make it evident that the response of the ministers as a whole was 
hearty. 

Between the sending of the summons and the meeting of the 
Synod a momentous event occurred, the full political and ecclesi- 
astical significance of which was not at once apparent, but which 
was to render futile much of the work of the Synod. The great 
Protector died, September 3, 1658, and was succeeded by his feeble 
son, Richard. In spite of this untoward event, however, the Synod 
met at the Savoy at the time appointed, September 29, having 
present the representatives of about a hundred and twenty 


churches,.® It is probable that the majority were laymen,* as at 





1 Norfolk. 2 That of Thomas Gilbert of Edgemond, Peck, II: 509. 

3 Increase Mather, who was in England during the session of the Synod, said, writing in 
1700 (Order of the Gospel, p. 75): ‘‘ Messengers of One hundred and Twenty Congregational 
Churches in Exgland, who met at the Savoy in London.”’” Orme, Works of John Owen, 1: 176, 
gives the total membership at the very probable figure of ‘about two hundred,” and Dr. Dexter 
follows him. 

4 Neal, Purztans, ed. New York, 1844, Il: 178, asserts this. 


ORGANIZATION OF THE SYNOD 349 


the Massachusetts Synod of 1662; but the leading Congregational 
ministers of England were of the membership. Who its modera- 
tors were it is impossible to say, but Thomas Goodwin, John Owen, 
and Philip Nye’ were all prominent in its proceedings, and were 
each well fitted for such a duty; John Howe, the Protector’s chap- 
lain, though conspicuous, was probably too young to have any very 
important part. 

The opening day was spent in discussion as to the course of 
procedure,’ the question being, as reported by tradition when Neal 
wrote, whether they should amend the Westminster Confession, or 
draw up a new symbol on substantially the same lines.* The latter 
plan prevailed, and a Committee of the most influential divines 
that Congregationalism could boast, Thomas Goodwin, John Owen, 
Philip Nye, William Bridge, Joseph Caryl, and William Greenhill, 
were chosen to prepare and report the desired confession.* Every 
member of this Committee except Owen had borne his share in 
the Westminster Assembly. At the same time George Griffith was 
elected scribe of the Synod.’ The work of the Committee, so far 
as completed, was reported each morning by the scribe to the 
whole Assembly,® and discussed, sometimes in speeches of consid- 
erable elaboration;’ but so little was there of novelty in the result, 
that the Synod, having much time on its hands, was able to devote 
a large portion of its hours to hearing disputes in churches® and to 
the more devotional exercises of fasting and prayer.® Even thus 
the session was brief. The labors of the Committee were unani- 
mously approved,’® and the Savoy Synod adjourned on Tuesday, 


1 Of Nye, Calamy records, he ‘*‘ was a principal person in managing the meeting of the coz- 
gregational churches at the Savoy.’? Non-Conformist’s Memorial, ed. London, 1775, I: 87. 

2 The Preface says, p. xi, ‘* The first days meeting, in which we considered and debated what 
to pitch upon.’’ Neal recorded, Purztans, I1: 178: ‘‘ They opened their synod with a day of fast- 
ing and prayer.’’ There is no necessary conflict between the two statements. 

3 Neal, Purztans, 11: 178. Neal’s work was originally published in 1732-38. 


4 Tbid. 5 Ibid. 8 [ézd. 

7 ‘*Such rare elaborate speeches my ears never heard before, nor since. All along, there was 
a most sweet harmony of both hearts and judgments amongst them.’’ Rev. James Forbes, a mem- 
ber, quoted by Orme, Works of Johz Owen, 1: 181. 

8 Neal, /ézd. 


®**We had some days of prayer and fasting, kept from morning till night,’’ James Forbes, 
quoted by Orme. 

10 Calamy, Account of the Ministers, etc., ed. London, 1713, II: 444. See also Preface to 
the Declaration itself, p. xi. 


350 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


October 12, 1658, after a session of twelve working days.’ Shortly 
after, the result was formally presented to the new Protector, 
Richard Cromwell, by Rev. Thomas Goodwin, who had been dele- 
gated for that work by the Assembly.’ 

The Savoy Synod seem to have been almost surprised at the 
unanimity which they discovered among the representatives of the 
churches, a unanimity that was the more gratifying since these 
churches had never had any previous consultation;*® and the writer 
of the Preface to the Declaration was convinced that such unity 
must be the direct work of the Spirit of God.* Without question- 
ing his faith, however, it is easy to discover causes less clearly 
supernatural. There was very little that was original in the work 
of the Synod. The Committee which prepared the result had_ 
shared, for the most part, in the deliberations of the Westminster 
Assembly. Like the Congregationalists of New England, they had 
nothing but approval for most of the doctrinal work of that 
famous body. Some sections of the Westminster Confession they 
desired to omit; but even here their task had largely been mapped 
out for them, for Parliament in approving the Westminster result 
had struck out those sections most displeasing to the Independ- 
ents.° The work of omission was thus comparatively easy; the 
Committee simply did more largely what Parliament had begun. 
But beside these omissions, the Savoy divines amended the phrase- 
ology of many passages, in general without important alteration of 
the sense; this is notably the case in the fifteenth chapter (on Re- 


pentance), which was wholly rewritten. They emphasized the 





1 Compare Preface, p. xi, where eleven working days are reckoned, omitting the opening day. 

2 See Orme, Works of John Owen, 1: 182, 183, where a quotation is given from Goodwin’s 
address to the Protector. Orme quotes from a Catalogue of the places where Richard Cronwell 
was proclaimed, p. 25. 

3 Preface, p. xiii. 

4 [bid., p. Xii. 

5 The Westminster Confession was reported to Parliament Dec. 4, 1646, under the title of 
Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines. But the Commons moved slowly. On April 22, 
1647, they asked for proof-texts, which the Assembly furnished. Still they were not satisfied. The 
less reluctant General Assembly of Scotland adopted the Confession, as it came from the Assembly 
at Westminster, on Aug. 27, 1647; but Parliament still debated, and finally, on June 20, 1648, adopted 
the Confession, with the omission of Ch. XX, § 4 (relating to the punishment of heresy, etc.); Ch. 
XXIV, §8§ 4 (in part), 5, 6 (on divorce); Ch. XXX entire (on church censures); and Ch. XXXI en- 
tire (on synods and councils). At the same time Parliament changed the title to Articles of 
Christian Religion. ‘The fact that Scotland adopted the original form, and that Presbyterianism 
soon broke down in England, prevented the emendations of Parliament from acquiring permanency. 


NATURE OF THE DECLARATION 351 


vicarious nature of Christ’s sacrifice in chapters eight and eleven. 
They defined the nature of the law given to Adam in chapter nine- 
teen. They asserted the rightfulness of toleration in non-essen- 
tials in chapter twenty-four. They omitted the declaration that 
baptism admits to the visible church in chapter twenty-nine. All 
these changes are of a minor nature. More important is the addi- 
tion of a whole chapter, the twentieth, Of the Gospel, and of the 
extent of the Grace thereof, which though intensely Calvinistic, and 
in no way antagonistic to the Westminster Confession, is neverthe- 
less a pleasing token of that readiness, always characteristic of 
Congregationalism, to hold forth the more gracious aspects of the 
religion of Christ, in at least as clear a light as the sanctions of 
‘law. Yet when these alterations in the Confession have been 
summed up, the impression remains that all that was really essen- 
tial had been anticipated in the omissions made by Parliament. 
No wonder such slight emendations, suggested by men of such 
influence, found ready acceptance. 

The really original work of the Savoy Synod was not upon the 
Confession, but is contained in the thirty sections relating to 
church-order appended to it. Here is a brief, compact, and lucid 
presentation of the main features of Congregationalism:—the 
headship of Christ, the constitution of the local church by the 
union of believers, its complete autonomy, its right to choose and 
ordain the officers appointed by Christ, the necessity of a call from 
aechurch to confér ministerial standing, the consent of the 
brethren as essential to all admissions and censures, synods or 
councils for advice but without judicial authority. But though 
these principles are made evident, and though they would hardly 
have been so fully formulated had it not been for the Cambridge 
Platform, the thirty sections adopted at the Savoy are far inferior 
as a working manual to the New England document. They 
breathe the hazy atmosphere of theoretic and non-consolidated 
Congregationalism, resembling in this respect the symbols of the 
closing years of the previous century. ‘The grand outlines of the 
polity are rough-drawn, but the detail is not yet sketched in. The 
men who drew it had not beheld the workings of Congregational- 


352 THE SAVOY. DECLARATION 


ism as an exclusive or even predominant polity.’ Had they done 
so they would have attempted to answer some of the practical 
questions which such an experience would have raised. There is 
also not the slightest hint in the document that the divines at the 
Savoy felt any interest in those questions regarding baptism and 
church membership by which contemporary New England was 
being turmoiled. 

As presented to the public, the result of the Savoy Assembly 
was preceded, it cannot be said fortified, by a long, dreary Preface, 
alleged to have been written by John Owen.’ If that able man 
really wrote it, and it is not improbable that he did, it is certainly 
one of the weakest productions that ever came from his pen.’ Its 
chief merit, aside from the few facts which it contains as to the 
course of events in the Synod, is its spirit of tolerance toward 
Christians of differing beliefs, —a tolerance as creditable as it was 
unusual in that age.* 

The Savoy Synod and its Declaration faded quickly from 
men’s minds in the turmoils of Richard Cromwell’s protectorate 
and the ruin which overtook Independents and Presbyterians alike 
at the Restoration: It excited no controversy, save a bitter de- 
nunciation from Richard Baxter, who looked upon it as a menace 
to the union of Presbyterians and Independents which he desired 
to effect;®° and a criticism, at a later period, upon its orthodoxy 
and consistency by Peter du Moulin, an Anglican minister of French 





1 A number of those who sat in the Assembly at the Savoy must have been in New England, 
but none such were of the committee to whom the formulation of the result was entrusted. 

2 Orme, Works of John Owen, 1: 177. Owen is too well known to need any extended 
notice. He was born in 1616, graduated at Oxford B.A. in 1632 and M.A. in 1635, entered holy 
orders, but believed that he experienced conversion some time after through a chance sermon. He 
became identified with the Presbyterian wing of Puritanism, but was turned to Congregationalism 
by Cotton’s Keyes, which he first read with the intention of refuting. In 1651 he was made dean of 
Christ Church Coll., Oxford, he sat in Parliament as representative of the University, in 1654 he 
became one of the ‘' Tryers’’ for ministerial fitness. The returned Presbyterian Parliament put 
him out of office at Oxford in March, 1660. In 1663 he was invited to fill the place of Norton as 
teacher of the Boston, Mass., church, but declined, thinking himself more needed in England. He 
died Aug. 24, 1683, The best account of him is that by Orme, Works of John Owen, London, 
1826, Vol. I., where a full list of his numerous writings will be found. 

9 Dexter, Cong, as seen, styles it: ‘over long and not over strong.” 

4 See Preface, pp, iii, iv, viii—x, 

5 For the ungenerous criticisms passed by Baxter on the Declaration and its framers, see his 
autobiography, Mr, Richard Baxter's Narrative of the Most Memorable Passages of his Life 
and Times, Sylvester's ed,, London, 1696, Pt, I: pp, 103, 104, Compare Neal, Purztans, ed. New 
York, 1844, II: 179, 180, 


FATE. OF THE DECLARATION 353 


birth, who had misunderstood its teachings or obtained an erroneous 
copy of its Declaration. To the latter critic Owen replied with 
some asperity.’. In England the course of events buried the Savoy 
Declaration in such oblivion that when Neal wrote, three-quarters 
of a century after its publication, he could affirm that even the 
Independents of his day had largely laid it aside for the more 
familiar works of the Westminster Assembly. Had the Savoy 
Declaration never gone beyond the shores of the land of its birth 
it would have been one of the most ephemeral of symbols; but its 
lasting use was to be in New England. Adopted by a Massachu- 
setts Synod at Boston in 1680 with a few immaterial modifications, 
and similarly accepted for Connecticut at Saybrook in 1708, its 
doctrinal confession long continued a recognized standard for the 
Congregational churches of America. They have never formally 
set it aside, and though in Congregational polity a general creed 
has binding authority only in so far as local churches accept it, 
this Savoy Confession, as slightly changed in 1680, was declared 
by the Council of 1865 —an assembly representative of the whole 
body of the Congregational churches of the United States—to 
embody substantially the faith to which those churches are 
pledged.’ In its Saybrook form it was established by law as the 
recognized doctrinal standard of the churches of Connecticut, and 
so continued till 1784. The appended sections regarding church 
order were never ratified on this side of the Atlantic; in New Eng- 
land the ampler Platform adopted at Cambridge in 1648 rendered 
them superfluous, and it was, therefore, only the Savoy Synod’s 
amended form of the Westminster Confession that survived the 
downfall of the English Commonwealth. 





1 The reply of Owen to Du Moulin gives us our knowledge of this controversy. It may be 
found in Orme’s Memoir, Works of John Owen, 1: 365-368. Though undated, a reference to 
Owen’s Doctrine of Justification shows that the letter must be later than 1677. 

2 Neal, Purztans, Il: 178. 

3 Burial Hill Declaration, on later page of this work: *‘ We, Elders and Messengers of the 
Congregational churches of the United States in National Council assembled, . . . do now de- 
clare our adherence to the faith and order of the apostolic and primitive churches held by our 
fathers, and substantially as embodied in the confessions and platforms which our Synods of 1648 and 
1680 set forth or reaffirmed.”’ 


THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


A | DECLARATION | or tue | FAITH and ORDER | 


Owned and practised in the | Congregational Churches 
| in | ENGLAND; | Agreed upon and consented unto | By 
their | ELDERS and MESSENGERS | IN | Their Meeting at 
the SAVOY, October 12. 1658. | ———- | ——— | LONDON: | 


Printed by /ofn Field, and are to be sold by | John Allen at the 
Sun Rising in Pauls | Church-yard, 1658. 


[ii blank ] 
[ iii | 


A 
PREFACE. 


On fession of the Faith that is in us, when justly called for, is so indispen- 
sable a due all owe to the Glory of the Soveraign GOD, that it is ranked 
among the Duties of the first Commandment, such as Prayer is ; and there- 

fore by Paz/ yoaked with Faith it self, as necessary to salvation: W7th the heart 
man believeth unto righteousness, and with mouth confession is made unto sal- 
vation, Our Lord Christ himself, when he was accused of his Doctrine, consid- 
ered simply as a matter of fact by preaching, refused to answer; because, as such, 
it lay upon evidence, and matter of testimony of others; unto whom therefore he 
refers himself: But when both the High Priest and P7/a¢e expostulate his Faith, 
and what he held himself to be; he without any demur at all, cheerfully makes 
declaration, That he was the Son of GOD; so to the High Priest: And that he 
was a King, and born to be a King; thus to Pilate; though upon the uttering of 
it his life lay at the stake: Which holy profession of his is celebrated for our 
example, 1 72m. 6. 13, 

Confesstons, when made by a company of professors of Christianity joyntly 
meeting to that end, the most genuine and natural use of such Confessions is, 
That under the same form of words, they express the substance of the same com- 
mon salvation, or unity of their faith; whereby speaking the same things, they 
shew themselves perfectly joyned in [iv] the same minde, and in the Toh 1.1 
same judgement, 

And accordingly such a transaction is to be looked upon but as a meet or fit 
mediunt Or means whereby to express ¢hat their common faith and salvation, and 





1 In the original these references are on the margin. 


(354) 


PREPACEK TO) THE DECLARATION 355 


no way to be made use of as an ¢mfosition upon any: Whatever is of force or 
constraint in matters of this nature causeth them to degenerate from the zame and 
nature of Confessions, and turns them from being Confessions of Faith, into ¢xac- 
tions and impositions of faith. 

And such common Confessions of the Orthodox Faith, rae in simplicity of 
heart by any such Body of Christians, with concord among themselves, ought to 
be entertained by all others that Jove the truth as it ts in Jesus, 
with an answerable rejoycing: For if the unanimous opinions and Acts 15. 
assertions but in some few points of Religion, and that when by 
two Churches, namely, that of Jerusalem, and the Messengers of Antioch met, 
assisted by some of the Apostles, were by the Believers of those times received 
with so much joy, (as it is said, Zhey rejoyced for the consolation) much more 
this is to be done, when the wole substance of Faith, and form of wholesome words 
shall be declared by the Messengers of a multitude of Churches, though wanting 
those advantages of counsel and authority of the Apostles, which that Assembly had. 

Which acceptation is then more specially due, when these shall (to choose) 
utter and declare their Faith, in the same swdéstance for matter, yea, words, for the 
most part, that other Churches and Assemblies, reputed the most Orthodox, have 
done before them: For upon such a correspondency, all may see ¢hat actually 
accomplished, which the Apostle did but exhort unto, and pray for, 
in those ¢wo more eminent Churches of the Corinthians and the rapes 
Romans ; [v| (and so in them for all the Christians of his time) that 
both Jew and Gentile, that is, men of different perswasions, (as they were) might 
glorifie GOD with one minde and with one mouth. And truly, the very turning 
of the Gentiles to the owning of the same Faith, in the substance of it, with the 
Christian Jew (though differing in greater points then we do from our brethren) 
is presently after dignified by the Apostle with this stile, That it is the Confession 
of Jesus Christ himself; not as the Odject onely, but as the Author 
and AMaker thereof: / will confess to thee (saith Christ to God) Vv 
among the Gentiles: So that in all such accords, Christ is the great 
and first Confessor ; and we, and all our Faith uttered by us, are but the £/zs¢/es, 
(as Paul) and Confessions (as Lsaiah there) of their Lord and ours; He, but ex- 
pressing what is written in his heart, through their hearts and mouthes, Zo the glory 
of God the rather: And shall not we all rejoyce herein, when as Christ himself 


is said to do it upon this occasion: as it there also follows, / w7l/ sing unto thy 
Namie. 


ays 


Further, as the soundness and wholsomness of the matter gives the vigor and 
fife to such Confessions, so the tnaward freeness, willingness and readiness of the 
spirits of the Cozfessors do contribute the deauty and /oveliness thereunto : as it is 
in Prayer to God, so in Confessions made to men. Jf two or three met, do agree, 
it renders both, to either the more acceptable. The Sfzrit of Christ is in himself 
too free, great and generous a Spirit, to suffer himself to be used by any humane 
arm, to whip men into belief; he drives not, but gently leads into all truth, and 
perswades men to dwell in the tents of lke precious Faith; which would lose of 
its preciousness and value, if that sparkle of freeness shone not in it: The char- 
acter of his people is to be a willing people in the day of his [vi] power, (not 
Mans) 77 the beauties of holiness, which are the Assemblings of the Saints: one 
glory of which Assemblings in that first Church, is said to: have been, 7hey met 
with one accord; which is there in that Psalm prophesied of, in the instance of 
that first Church, for all other that should succeed. 


350 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


And as this great Spirit is in himself free, when, and how far, and in whom 
to work, so where and when he doth work, he carrieth it with the same freedom, 
and is said to be a free Spirit, as he both is, and works in us: And where this 
Spirit of the Lord ts, there ts Liberty. 

Now, as to this Confesston of ours, besides, that a conspicuous conjunction 
of the particulars mentioned, hath appeared therein: There are also four remark- 
able Attendants thereon, which added, might perhaps in the eyes of sober and 
indifferent spirits, give the whole of this Transaction a room and rank amongst 
other many good and memorable things of this age; at least all set together, do 
cast as clear a gleam and manifestation of Gods Power and Presence, as hath 
appeared in any such kinde of Cozfesstons, made by so numerous a company these 
later years. 

The first, is the Zemper, (or distemper rather) of the ¢zes, during which, 
these Churches have been gathering, and which they have run through. All do 
(out of a general sense) complain that the times have been ferzllous, or difficult 
times; (as the Apostle foretold) and that in respect to danger from seducing spirits, 
more perillous then the hottest seasons of Persecution. We have sailed through 
an Aéstuation, Fluxes and Refluxes of great varieties of Spirits, Doctrines, Opin- 
ions and Occurrences; and especially in the matter of Opinions, which have been 
accompanied [ vii] in their several seasons, with powerful perswasions and tempta- 
tions, to seduce those of our way. It is known men have taken the freedom (not- 
withstanding what Authority hath interposed to the contrary) to vent and vend 
their own vain and accursed imaginations, contrary to the great and fixed Truths 
of the Gospel, insomuch, as take the whole round and circle of delusions, the 
Devil hath in this small time, ran, it will be found, that every truth, of greater 
or lesser weight, hath by one or other hand, at one time or another, been ques- 
tioned and called to the Bar amongst Us, yea, and impleaded, under the pretext 
(which hath some degree of Justice in it) that all should not be bound up to the 
Traditions of former times, nor take Religion upon trust. 

Whence it hath come to pass, that many of the soundest Professors were 
put upon a new search and disquisition of such truths, as they had taken for 
granted, and yet had lived upon the comfort of: to the end they might be able 
to convince others, and establish their own hearts against that darkness and unbe- 
lief, that is ready to close with error, or at least to doubt of the truth, when error 
is speciously presented. And hereupon we do professedly account it one of the 
greatest advantages gained out of the temptations of these times ; yea the honor of 
the Saints and Ministers of these Nations, That after they had sweetly been exer- 
cised in, and had improved practical and experimental Truths, this should be their 
further lot, to examine and discuss, and indeed, anew to learn over every Doctrinal 
Truth, both out of the Scriptures, and also with a fresh taste thereof in their 
own hearts; which is no other then what the Apostle exhorts to, 7ry all things, 
hold fast that which is good. Conversion unto God at first, what is it else [viii] 
then a savory and affectionate application, and the bringing home to the heart 
with spiritual “ght and /ife, all truths that are necessary to salvation, together with 
other /esser truths ? all which we had afore conversion taken in but notionally from 
common education and tradition. 

Now that after this first gust those who have bin thus converted should be 
put upon a new probation and search out of the Scriptures, not onely of all princi- 


PREFACE TO THE DECLARATION 357 


ples explicitely ingredients to Conversion; (unto which the Apostle re- 

ferreth the Ga/atians when they had diverted from them) but of all This perswa- 
other superstructures as well as fundamentals; and together therewith, ae ig ye 
anew to experiment the power and sweetness of all these in their ot alee 
own souls: What is this but ¢ryed Faith indeed? and equivalent to Gal. 5. 8. 
a new conversion unto the truth? 42 Anchor that is proved to 

be sure and stedfast, that will certainly hold in all contrary storms: This was the 
eminent seal and commendation which those holy Apostles that lived and wrote 
last; Peter, John and /uze; in their Epistles did set and give to the Christians 
of the latter part of those primitive times. And besides, it is clear and evident 
by all the other Epistles, from first to last, that it cost the Apostles 

as much, and far more care and pains to preserve them they had 

converted, 77 the truth, then they had taken to turn them thereunto 1 Pet. 1. 5. 
at first: And it is in it self as great a work and instance of the 

power of God, that £eeps, yea, guards us through faith unto salvation. 

Secondly, let this be added, (or superadded rather) to give full weight and 
measure, even to running over), that we have all along this season, held forth 
(though quarreled with for it by our brethren) this great principle of these times, 
That amongst all Christian States and Churches, there [ix] ought to be vouchsafed 
a forbearance and mutual indulgence unto Saints of all perswasions, that keep 
unto, and hold fast the necessary foundations of faith and holiness, in all other 
matters extrafundamental, whether of Faith or Order. 

This to have been our constant principle, we are not ashamed to confess to 
the whole Christian world. Wherein yet we desire we may be understood, not as 
if in the abstract we stood indifferent to falsehood or truth, or were careless whether 
faith or error, in any Truths but fundamental, did obtain or not, so we had our 
liberty in our petty and smaller differences: or as if to make sure of that, we had 
cut out this wide cloak for it: No, we profess that the whole, and every particle of 
that Faith delivered to the Saints, (the substance of which we have according to 
our light here professed) is, as to the propagation and furtherance of it by a// 
Gospel-means, aS precious to us as our lives; or what can be supposed dear to 
us; and in our sphere we have endeavored to promote them accordingly: But 
yet withall, we have and do contend, (and if we had all the power which any, or 
all of our brethren of differing opinions have desired to have over us, or others, 
we should freely grant it unto them all) we have and do contend for this, That 7 
the concrete, the persons of all such gracious Saints, they and their errors, as they 
are in them, when they are but such errors as do and may stand with communion 
with Christ, though they should not repent of them, as not being convinced of them 
to the end of their days; that those, with their errors (that are purely spiritual, 
and intrench and overthrow not civil societies), as concrete with their persons, 
should for Christs sake be born withall by all Christians in the world; and they 
notwithstanding be permitted to enjoy all Ordinances and spiritual Priviledges 
according to their light, as [x] freely as any other of their brethren that pretend 
to the greatest Orthodoxity ; as having as equal, and as fair a right in and unto 
Christ, and all the holy things of Christ, that any other can challenge to themselves. 

And this doth afford a full and invincible testimony on our behalf, in that 
whiles we have so earnestly contended for this just liberty of Saints in all the 
Churches of Christ, we our selves have had no need of it: that is as to the matter 
of the profession of aith which we have maintained together with others: and of 


358 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


this, this subsequent Confession of Faith gives sufficient evidence. So as we have 
the confidence in Christ, to utter in the words of those two great Apostles, That 
we have stood fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free (in the be- 
half of others, rather then our selves) and having been /ree, have not made use 
of out [our] Zderty for a cloak of error or maliciousness in our selves: And yet, 
loe, whereas from the beginning of the rearing of these Churches, that of the 
Apostle hath been (by some) prophecyed of us, and applyed to us, 7Zhat whiles 
we promised (unto others) Zberty, we our selves would become servants of corrup- 
tion, and be brought in bondage to all sorts of fancies and imaginations; yet the 
whole world may now see after the experience of many years ran through (and it 
is manifest by this Confession) that the great and gracious God hath not onely 
kept us in that common unity of the Faith and Knowledge of the Son of God, 
which the whole Community of Saints have and shall in their generations come 
unto, but also in the same Truths, both small and great, that are built thereupon, 
that any other of the best and more pure Reformed Churches in their best times 
(which were their first times) have arrived unto: This Confession withall holding 
forth a professed opposition unto the common errors and heresies of these times. 

[xi] These ¢wo considerations have been taken from the seasons we have 
gone through. 

Thirdly, let the space of time it self, or days, wherein from first to last the 
whole of this Confession was framed and consented to by the whole of us, be duly 
considered by sober and ingenuous spirits: the whole of days in which we had 
meetings about it, (set aside the two Lords days, and the first days meeting, in 
which we considered and debated what 'to pitch upon) were but eleven days, part 
of which also was spent by some of us in prayer, others in consulting; and in the 
end all agreeing. We mention this small circumstance but to this end, (which still 
adds unto the former) That it gives demonstration, not of our freeness and will- 
tngness onely, but of our readiness and preparedness unto so great a work; which 
otherwise, and in other Assemblies, hath ordinarily taken up long and great de- 
bates, as in such a variety of matters of such concernment, may well be supposed 
to fall out. And this is no other then what the Apostle Pe/er exhorts 
unto, Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh  « Pet. 3, 
you a reason or account of the hope that is in you. The Apostle Ry 
Paul saith of the spiritual Truths of the Gospel, Zhat God hath 
prepared them for those that love him. The inward and innate 8 Cor. 2. 
constitution of the new creature being in it self such as is suted to a 
all those Truths, as congenial thereunto: But although there be this mutual 
adaptness between these two, yet such is the mixture of ignorance, darkness and 
unbelief, carnal reason, preoccupation of judgement, interest of parties, wanton- 
ness in opinion, proud adhering to our own perswasions, and perverse oppositions 
and aversness to agree with others, and a multitude of such like distempers com- 
nion to believing man: All which are not onely mixed with, but at times, (especially 
in [xii] such times as have passed over our heads) are ready to overcloud our judge- 
ments, and do cause our eyes to be double, and sometimes prevail as well as 
lusts, and do byass our wills and affections: And such is their mixture, that 
although there may be existent an habitual preparedness in mens spirits, yet not 
always a present readiness [is] to be found, specially not in such a various multi- 
tude of men, to make a solemn and deliberate profession of all truths, it being 
as great a work to finde the spirits of the just (perhaps the best) of Saints, ready 
for every truth, as /o be prepared for every good work. 


PREFACE. TO; THE DECLARATION 359 


It is therefore to be looked at as a great and special work of the holy Ghost, 
that so numerous a company of Ministers, and other principal brethren, should 
so readily, speedily and joyntly give up themselves unto such a whole Body of 
Truths that are after godliness. 

This argues they had not their faith to seek; but, as it said of Azra, that 
they were ready Scribes, and (as Christ) ¢zstructed unto the kingdom of heaven, 
being as the good housholders of so many families of Christ, bringing forth of 
their store and treasury New and Old. It shews these truths had been familiar 
to them, and they acquainted with them, as with their daz/y food and provision, 
(as Christs allusion there insinuates) in a word, that so they had preached, and that 
so their people had believed, as the Apostle speaks upon one like particular occa- 
sion. And the Apostle Paz/ considers (in cases of this nature) the suddenness or 
length of the time, either one way or the other; whether it were in mens forsaking 
or fearning of the truth. Thus the suddenness in the Galatians 
case in leaving the truth, he makes a wonder of it: JZ marvel Gal. 1.6. 
that you are SO SOOW (that is, in so short a time) removed from 
the true Gospel unto another. Again on the contrary, in the Hebrews 
he aggravates their back-[xiii]wardness, 7at when for the time you Heb. s. 
ought to be Teachers, you had need that one teach you the very first a 
principles of the Oracles of God. The Parable contrary to both these 
having fallen out in this transaction, may have some ingredient and weight. with 
ingenuous spirits in its kinde, according to the proportion is put upon either of 
these forementioned in their adverse kinde, and obtain the like special observation. 

This accord of ours hath fallen out without having held any correspondency 
together, or prepared consultation, by which we might come to be advised of 
one anothers mindes. We alledge not this as a matter of commendation in us: 
no, we acknowledge it to have been a great neglect: And accordingly one of 
the first proposals for union amongst us was, That there might be a constant 
correspondence held among the Churches for counsel and mutual edification, so 
for time to come to prevent the like omission. 

We confess that from the first, every, or at least the generality of our Churches, 
have been in a maner like so many Ships (though holding forth the same general 
colours) lancht singly, and sailing apart and alone in the vast Ocean of these 
tumultuating times, and they exposed to every wind of Doctrine, under no other 
conduct then the Word and Spirit, and their particular Elders and principal 
Brethren, without Associations among our selves, or so much as holding out com- 
mon lights to others, whereby to know where we were. 

But yet whilest we thus confess to our own shame this neglect, let all ac- 
knowledge, that God hath ordered it for his high and greater glory, in that his 
singular care and power should have so watcht over each of these, as that all 
should be found to have steered their course by the same [xiv] Chart, and to 
have been bound for one and the same Port, and that upon this general search 
now made, that the same holy and blessed Truths of all sorts, which are currant 
and warrantable amongst all the other Churches of Christ in the world, should be 
found to be our Lading. 

The whole, and every of these things when put together, do cause us (what- 
ever men of prejudiced and opposite spirits may finde out to slight them) with 
a holy admiration, to say, That ¢his zs no other then the Lords doing; and which 


ee 
we with thanksgiving do take from his hand as a special ‘oken upon us for good, and 


360 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


doth shew that God ts faithful and upright towards those that are planted in his 
house: And that as the Faith was but ozce for all, and intentionally frst delivered 
wito the Saints; so the Saints, when not abiding scattered, but gathered under their 
respective Pastors according to Gods heart into an house, and Churches unto the Zv- 
ing God, such together are, as Paul forespake it, the most steady and firm fz//ar and 
seat of Truth that God hath any where appointed to himself on earth, where his 
truth is best conserved, and publiquely held forth; there being in such Assemblies 
weekly a rich dwelling of the Word amongst them, that is, a daily open house kept 
by the means of those good Housholders, their Teachers and other Instructers re- 
spectively appropriated to them, whom Christ in the vertue of his Ascension, con- 
tinues to ezve as gifts to his people, himself dwelling amongst them; to the end that 
by this, as the most sure standing permanent means, ¢he Saints might be perfected, 
“ll we all (even all the Saints in present and future ages) do come by this constant 
and daily Ordinance of his unto the unity of the Faith and Knowledge 

of the [xv] Son of God unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the — Eph. 4. 12. 
stature of the fulness of Christ (which though growing on by parts 

and piecemeal, will yet appear compleat, when ¢hat great and general Assembly shall 
be gathered, then when this world is ended, and these dispensations have had their 
fulness and period) and so that from henceforth (such a provision being 

made for us) ze de no more children tossed to and fro, and carried 4. 

about with every wind of Doctrine. 

And finally, this doth give a fresh and recent demonstration, that the great 
Apostle and High-priest of our profession is indeed ascended into 
heaven, and continues there with power and care, faithful as a son Heb. 3. 6. 
over his own house, whose house are we, tf we hold fast the confidence 
and the rejoycing of the hope firm unto the end: and shewes that he will, as he hath 
promised, be with his own Institutions to the end of the world. 

It is true, that many sad miscarriages, divisions, breaches, fallings off from holy 
Ordinances of God, have along this time of tentation, (especially in the beginning of 
it) been found in some of our Churches; and no wonder, if what hath been said be 
fully considered: Many reasons might further be given hereof, that would be a suf- 
ficient Apology, without the help of a retortion upon other Churches (that promised 
themselves peace) how that more destroying ruptures have befallen them, and that in 
a wider sphere and compass; which though it should not justifie us, yet may serve to 
stop others mouthes. 

Let Rome glory of the peace in, and odedience of her children, against the Re- 
formed Chzrches for their divisions that [xvi] [oc|curred (especially in the first -rear- 
ing of them) whilest we all know the causes of their dull and stupid peace to have 
been carnal interests, worldly correspondencies, and coalitions strengthened by grati- 
fications of all sorts of men by that Religion, the principles of blinde Devotion, 
Traditional Faith, Ecclesiastical Tyranny, by which she keeps her children in bond- 
age to this day. We are also certain, that the very same prejudice that from hence 
they would cast upon the Reformed (if they were just) do lye as fully against those 
pure Churches raised up by the Apostles themselves in those first times: for as we 
have heard of their patience, sufferings, consolations, and the transcending gifts 
poured out, and graces shining in them, so we have heard complaints 
of their avistons too, of the forsakings of their Assemblies, as the Heb. 10. 22. 
custom or maner of SOATE was (which later were in that respect 
felones de se, and needed no other delivering up to Satan as their punishment, then 


PREFACE TO THE DECLARATION 361 


what they executed upon themselves.) We read of the shipwrack also of Faith and 
a good Conscience, and overthrowings of the faith of SOME ; and still but of some, 
not a//, nor the most: which is one piece of an Apologie the Apostle again and 
again inserts to future ages, and through mercy we have the same to make. 

And truly we take the confidence professedly to say, that these tentations com- 
mon to the purest Churches of Saints separated from the mixture of the world, 
though they grieve us (for who zs offended, and we burn not?) yet they do not at all 
stumble us, as to the truth of our way, had they been many more: We say it again, 
these stumble us no more (as to that point) then it doth offend us against the power 
of Religion it self, to have seen, and to see daily in particular persons called out and 
separated from the world |xvii| by an effectual work of conversion, that they fora 
while do suffer under disquietments, vexations, turmoils, unsettlements of spirit, 
that they are tossed with tempests and horrid tentations, such as they had not in 
their former estate, whilst they walked according to the course of this world: For 
Peter hath sufficiently instructed us whose business it is to raise such storms, even 
the Devzl’s; and also whose designe it is, that after they have suffered a while, 
thereby they shall be setled, perfected, stablished, that have so suffered, even fhe 
God of all Grace. And look what course of dispensation God holds to Sazzts per- 
sonally, he doth the like to dodtes of Saints in Churches, and the Devil the same for 
his part too: And that consolatory Maxim of the Apostle, God shall tread down 
Satan under your feet shortly, which Pazl uttereth concerning the Church of Rome, 
shews how both God and Satan have this very hand therein; for he speaks that very 
thing in reference unto their divisions, as the coherence clearly manifests; and so 
you have both designs exprest at once. 

Yea, we are not a little induced to think, that the a/vistons, breaches, &c. of 
those primitive Churches would not have been so frequent among the people them- 
selves, and not the Elders onely, had not the freedom, liberties and rights of the 
Members (the Brethren, we mean) been stated and exercised in those Churches, the 
same which we maintain and contend for to be in ours. 

Yea (which perhaps may seem more strange to many) had not those Churches 
been constituted of Members inlightned further then with notional and traditional 
knowledge, by a new and more powerful light of the Holy Ghost, wherein they had 
been made partakers of the holy Ghost, and the heavenly gift, and their hearts had 
tasted the good Word of [xviii] God, and the Powers of the world to come, and of 
such Members at lowest, there had not fallen out those kindes of divisions among 
them. 

For experience hath shewn, that the most common sort of meer Doctrinal Pro- 
fessors (such as the most are now a days) whose highest elevation is but freedom 
Jrom moral scandal joyned with devotion to Christ through meer education, such as 
in many Zwrks is found towards AZahomet, that these finding and feeling themselves 
not much concerned in the active part of Religion, so they may have the honor 
(especially upon a Reformation of a new Refinement) that themselves are approved 
Members, admitted to the Lords Supper, and their children to the Ordinance of 
Baptism ; they regard not other matters (as Gallio did not) but do easily and readily 
give up themselves unto their Guides, being like dead fishes carried with the common 
stream ; whereas those that have a further renewed light by a work of the holy 
Ghost, whether saving or temporary, are upon the quite contrary grounds apt to be 
busie about, and inquisitive into, what they are to receive and practise, or wherein 
their consciences are professedly concerned and involved: And thereupon they take 

24 


362 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


the freedom to examine and try the spirits, whether of God or no: And from hence 
are more apt to dissatisfaction, and from thence to run into division, and many of 
such proving to be inlightned but with a femporary, not saving Hazth (who have 
such a work of the Spirit upon them, and profession in them, as will and doth ap- 
prove it self to the judgement of Saints, and ought to be so judged, until they be 
otherwise discovered) who at long run, prove hypocrites through indulgence unto 
lusts, and then out of their lusts persist [xix] to hold up these divisions unto breach 
of, or departings from Churches, and the Ordinances of God, and God zs even with 
them for it, ‘hey waxing worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived ; and even 
many of those that are sincere, through a mixture of darkness and erroneousness in 
their judgements, are for a season apt out of conscience Zo be led away with the error 
of others, which lie in wait to decetve. 

Insomuch as the Apostle upon the example of those first times, foreseeing also 
the like events in following generations upon the like causes, hath been bold to set 
this down as a vz/ed Case, that likewise in other Churches so constituted and de facto 
empriviledged as that of the Church of Corinth was (which single Church, in the 
sacred Records about it, is the compleatest Mirror of Church-Constitution, Order 
and Government, and events thereupon ensuing, of any one Church whatever that 
we have story of) his Maxim is, Zhere must be also divisions amongst you; he setly 
inserts an [4 Z.SO]' in the case, as that which had been in his own observation, and 
that which would be émi 76 odd the fate of other Churches like thereunto, so prophe- 
steth he: And he speaks this as peremtorily as he doth elsewhere in that other, 
We must through many tribulations enter into the Kingdom of Heaven: Yea, and 
that al/ that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution: There is a 
[47UST\ upon both alike, and we bless God, that we have run through both, and 
do say, and we say no more; Zat as it was then, so 1s tt now, in both respects. 

However, such hath been the powerful hand of Gods Providence in ¢hese, which 
have been the worst of our 77yal/s, That out of an approved experience and observa- 
tion [xx] of the issue, we are able to adde that other part of the Apostles Prediction, 
That therefore szach rents must be, that they which are approved may be made mant- 
fest among you; which holy issue God (as having aimed at it therein) doth fre- 
quently and certainly bring about in Churches, as he doth bring upon them that 
other fate of division. Let them therefore look unto it, that are the Azthors of such 
disturbances, as the Apostle warneth, Ga/. 5. 10. The experiment ts this, That we 
have seen, and do daily see, that multitudes of holy and precious souls, and (in the 
holy Ghosts word) approved Saints, have been, and are the more rooted and 
_ grounded by means of these shakings, and do continue to cleave the faster to Christ, 
and the purity of his Ordinances, and value them the more by this cost God hath put 
them to for the enjoying of them, who having been planted in the House of the Lord, 
have flourished in the Courts of our God, in these evil times, to shew that the Lord 
is upright, And this experimented event from out of such divisions, hath more con- 
firmed us, and is a lowder Apologie for us, then all that our opposites are able from 
our breaches to alleadge to prejudice us. 


We will add a few words for conclusion, and give a more particular account of 
this our DECLARAT/ON. In drawing up this Confession of Fatth, 
we have had before us the Articles of Religion,” approved and passed _—_ June 20, 
by both Houses of Parliament, after advice had with an Assembly of 1648, 
Divines, called together by them for that purpose. To which Confes- 





1, ] in original. 2 See ante, p. 350. 
8 » P. 35 


= 


PREFACE TO THE DECLARATION 363 


sion, for the substance of it, we fully assent, as do our Brethren of Mew-Zugland,} 
and the Churches also of Scot/and,? as each in their general Synods have testified. 

[xxi] A few things we have added for obviating some erroneous opinions, that 
have been more broadly and boldly here of late maintained by the Asserters, then in 
former times; and made some other additions and alterations in method, here and 
there, and some clearer explanations, as we found occasion. 

We have endeavored throughout, to hold to such Truths in this our Confession, 
as are more properly termed matters of Faith; and what is of Church-order, we 
dispose in certain Propositions by it self. To this course we are led by the Example 
of the Honorable Houses of Parliament, observing what was established, and what 
omitted by them in that Confession the Assembly presented to them. Who thought 
it not convenient to have matters of Discipline and Church-Government put into a 
Confession of Faith, especially such particulars thereof, as then were, and still are 
controverted and under dispute by men Orthodox and sound in Faith. The 30% 
cap. therefore of that Confession, as it was presented to them by the Assembly, 
which is of Church-Censures, their Use, Kindes, and in whom placed. As also cap. 
31. of Synods and Councels, by whom to be called, of what force in their decrees and 
determinations. And the 4 paragr. of the 20% cap. which determines what ofz7- 
zons and practises disturb the peace of the Church, and how such disturbers ought to 
be proceeded against by the Censures of the Church, and punished by the Civil 
Magistrate. Also a great part of the 24" cap. of Marriage and Divorce. These 
were such doubtful assertions, and so unsutable to a Confession of Faith, as the 
fTonorable Houses in their great Wisdom thought fit to lay them aside: There being 
nothing that tends more to heighten dissentings among Brethren, [xxii] then to de- 
termine and adopt the ma¢ter of their aéfference, under so high a title, as to be an 
Article of our Faith: So that there are two whole Chapters, and some Paragraphs 
in other Chapters in their Confession, that we have upon this account omitted ; and 
the rather do we give this notice, because that Copy of the Parliaments, 
followed by us, is in few mens hands; the other as it came from the Aug, 1647 
Assembly, being approved of in Scotland, was printed and hastened 
[i]Jnto the world before the Parliament had declared their Resolutions about it; 
which was not till /zse 20. 1648. and yet hath been, and continueth to be the Copy 
(ordinarily) onely sold, printed and reprinted for these e/even years. 

After the 19t* cap. of the Law, we have added a cap. of the Gospel, it being a 
Title that may not well be omitted in a Confession of Faith: In which Chapter, 
what is dispersed, and by intimation in the Assemblies Confession with some little 
addition, is here brought together, and more fully under one head. 


That there are not Scriptures annexed as in some Confessions? 
(though in divers others it’s otherwise) we give the same account as did ___ Session 786. 
the Reverend Assembly in the same case: which was this; Zhe Con- 
fession being large, and so framed, as to meet with the common errors, tf the 
Scriptures should have been alleadged with any clearness, and by shewing where the 
strength of the proof lieth, tt would have required a volume, 

We say further, it being our utmost end in this (as it is indeed of a Confession) 





1 See ante, p. 195. 2 [bid., Pp. 350. 

3 This absence of proof texts was remedied, as far as Connecticut was concerned, by the Say- 
brook Synod in 1708. Parliament compelled the Westminster Assembly to add them; see ante, 
P. 350: 


364. THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


humbly to give an account what we hold and assert in these matters; that others, 
especially the Churches of Christ may judge of us accordingly. [xxiii] This we 
aimed at, and not so much to instruct others, or convince gainsayers. These are 
the proper works of other institutions of Christ, and are to be done in the strength 
of express Scripture. .4 Confession is an Ordinance of another nature. 


What we have laid down and asserted about CHURCHES and their Govern- 
ment, we humbly conceive to be the Order which Christ himself hath appointed to 
be observed, we have endeavored to follow Scripture-light ; and those also that went 
before us according to that Rule, desirous of nearest uniformity with reforming 
Churches, as with our Brethren in Mew-Lngland, so with others, that differ from 
them and us, 

The Models and Platforms of this subject laid down by learned men, and prac- 
tised by Churches, are various: We do not judge it drotherly, or grateful, to insist 
upon comparisons as some have done; but this experience teacheth, That the variety, 
and possibly the disputes and emudlatians arising thence, have much strengthened, if 
not fixed, this unhapy perswasion in the mindes of some learned and good men, 
namely, Zhat there ts no settled Order laid down in Scripture; but it’s left to the 
prudence of the Christian Magistrate, to compose or make choice of such a Form as 
is most sutable and consistent with their Civil Government. Where this opinion is 
entertained in the perswasion of Governors, there, Churches asserting their Power 
and Order to be jure divino, and the appointment of Jesus Christ, can have no better 
nor more honorable entertainment, then a Toleration or Permission. 

Yet herein there is this remarkable advantage to all [xxiv] parties that differ, 
about what in Government is of Christs appointment ; in that such A/agzstrates have 
a far greater latitude in conscience, to tolerate and permit the several forms of each 
so bound up in their perswasion, then ¢/ey have to submit unto what the Magistrate 
shall impose: And thereupon the Magistrate exercising an indulgency and forbear- 
ance, with protection and encouragement to the people of God, so differing from 
him, and amongst themselves: Doth therein discharge as great a faithfulness to 
Christ, and love to his people, as can any way be supposed and expected from any 
Christian Magistrate, of what perswasion soever he is. And where this clemency 
from Governors is shewed to any sort of persons or Churches of Christ upon such a 
principle, it will in equity produce this just effect, That all that so differ from him, 
and amongst themselves, standing in equal and alike difference from the principle of 
such a Magistrate, he is equally free to give a like liberty to them, one as well as 
the other. 


This faithfulness in our Governors we do with thankfulness to God acknowledge, 
and to their everlasting honor, which appeared much in the late Reformation. The 
ffrerarchie, Common-prayer-book, and all other things grievous to Gods people, 
being removed, they made choice of an Assembly of learned men, to advise whe*t 
Government and Order is meet to be established in the room of these things ; and 
because it was known there were different opinions (as always hath been among Godly 
men) about forms of Church-Government, there was by the Ordinance first sent forth 
to call an Assembly, not onely a choice made of persons of several perswasions to sit 
as Members there, but liberty given, to a lesser numdéer, if [xxv] dissenting, to report 
their Judgements and Reasons, as well and as freely as the major part. 


* a turned upside down. 


PREFACE TO THE DECLARATION 365 


Hereupon the Honorable House of Commons (an Indulgence we hope will never 
be forgotten) finding by papers received from them, that the Members of the Assem- 
bly were not like to compose differences amongst themselves, so as to joyn in the 
same Rule for Church-Government, did Order further as followeth: @Ubhat a Come 
mittee of Hords and Commons, &c. do take into consideration the 
differences of the Opinions in the Assembly of Divines in point of 
Church=Government, and to endeavor a union if it be possible; and 
in case that cannot be done, to endeavor the finding out some way, 
bow far tender consciences, who cannot in all things submit to the 
same Rule which shall be established, may be born with according 
to the Word, and as may stand witb the publique peace. 


By all which it is evident the Parliament purposed not to establish the Rule of 
Church-Government with such vigor, as might not permit and bear with a practise 
different from what they had established : In persons and Churches of different prin- 
ciples, if occasion were. And this Christian clemency and indulgence in our Gover- 
nors, hath been the foundation of that /veedom and Liberty, in the managing of 
Church-affairs, which our Brethren, as well as WE£, that differ from them, do now, 
and have many years enjoyed. 

The Honorable Houses by several Ordinances of Parliament after much consul- 
tation, having settled Rules [xxvi] for Church-Government, and sach an 
Leclestastical Order as they judged would best joynt with the Laws and Ordinance 
Government of the Kingdom, did publish them, requiring the practise — of March 14. 
hereof throughout the Nation; and in particular, by the Ministers of 1645. 
the Province of London. But (upon the former reason, or the like 
charitable consideration) these Az/es were not imposed by them under any P//V- 
ALT’'Y or rigorous inforcement, though freqnently urged thereunto by some. 

Our reverend Brethren of the Province of Losdon, having considered of these 
Ordinances, and the Church-Government laid down in them, declared their opinions 
to be, Zhat there ts not a compleat rule in those Ordinances ; also, 
that there are many necessary things not yet established, and some  Considera- 
things wherein their consciences are not so fully satisfied. These tions and 
Brethren in the same paper, have published also their joynt Resolution — Cautions 
to practise in all things according to the rule of the Word, and accorad- from Sion 
ing to these Ordinances, so far as they conceive them correspond to itt, Coll. June 
and tn so doing they trust they shall not grieve the spirit of the truly 19. 1646. 
godly, nor give any just occasion to them that are contrary minded, to 
blame their proceedings. 

We humbly conceive (that WZ being dissatisfied in these things as our Brethren) 
the like liberty was intended by the honorable Houses, and may be taken by us of 
the Congregational way (without blame or grief to the spirits of those Brethren at 
least) to resolve, or rather to continue in the same resolution and practise in these 
matters, which indeed were our practises in times of greatest opposition, and before 
this reformation was begun. 

And as our Brethren, the Ministers of London, drew up and published their 
opinions and apprehensions about [xxvii] Church-Government into an intire System ; 
so we now give the like publique account of our consciences, and the rules by which 
we have constantly practised hitherto ; which we have here drawn up, and do pre- 
sent. Whereby it will appear how much, or how little we differ in these things from 
our Presbyterian Brethren. 


366 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


And we trust there is no just cause why any man, either for our differing from 
the present settlement, it being out of conscience, and not out of contempt, or our 
differences one from another, being not z7//a/, should charge either of us with that 
odious reproach of Schism. And indeed, if not for our differing from the State- 
settlement, much less because we differ from our Brethren, our differ- 
ences being 77 some lesser things, and circumstances, onely, as them- Jus divinum 
selves acknowledge. And let it be further considered, that we have  Minist. pub. 
not broken from them or their Order by these differences (but rather by the Pro- 
they from us) and in that respect we less deserve their censure; our vost of Lon- 
practise being no other then what it was in our breaking from Episco- don in the 
pacy, and long before Presbytery, or any such form as now they are in, Preface. 
was taken up by them ; and we will not say how probable it is that the 
yoke of Episcopacy had been upon our neck to this day, if some such way (as 
formerly, and now is, and hath been termed Schzsm) had not with much suffering bin 
then practised & since continued in. 

For Vovelty, wherewith we are likewise both charged by the enemies of both, 
it is true, in respect of the publique and open profession, either of Presbytery or 
Independency, this Nation hath been a stranger to each way, it’s possible ever since 
it hath been Christian ; though for our selves we are able to trace the footsteps of an 
Independent Congregational Way in the ancientest customs of [xxviii] the Churches, 
as also in the writings of our soundest Protestant Divines, and (that 
which we are much satisfied in) a full concurrence throughout in all  Puritanis. 
the substantial parts of Church-Governments, with our Reverend Ang. by Dr. 
Brethren the o/d Puritan non-Conformists, who being instant in prayer Aims near 
and much sufferings, prevailed with the Lord, and we reap with joy, 50 years 
what they sowed in tears. Our Brethren also that are for Presbyterial since, asthe 
subordinations, profess what is of weight against Vove/ty for their way. opinions of 
Whitehead, Gilbe, Fox, Dearing, Greenham, Cartwright, Venner, Fulk, Whitaker, Rainold, 
Perkins, &c. 

And now therefore seeing the Lord, in whose hand is the heart of Princes, hath 
put into the hearts of our Governors to tolerate and permit (as they have done many 
years) persons of each perswasion, to enjoy their consciences, though neither come up 
to the Rule established by Authority: And that which is more, to give us both pro- 
tection, and the same encouragement that the most devoted Cozformists in those 
former superstitious times enjoyed, yea, and by a publique Law to establish this. 
Liberty for time to come; and yet further, in the midst of our fears, to set over us a 
Prince that owns this Establishment, and cordially resolves to secure our churches in 
the enjoyment of these Liberties, if we abuse them not to the disturbance of the 
Civil Peace. 

This should be a very great engagement upon the hearts of all, though of differ- 
ent perswasions, to endeavor our utmost, joyzt/y to promove the honor and prosperity 
of such a Government and Governors by whatsoever means, which in our Callings as 
Ministers of the Gospel, and as Churches of Jesus Christ the Prince of peace, we are 
any way able to; as also to be peaceably disposed one [xxix] towards another, and 
with mutual toleration to love as brethren, notwithstanding such differences, remem-. 
bring, as it’s very equal we should, the differences that are between Presbyterians 
and /ndependents, being differences between fellow-servants, and neither of them 
having authority given from God or man, to impose their opinions, one more then 





1]. e,, Bradshaw's Purttanismus Anglicanus, Frankfort, 1610; a collection of the opinions 
of leading Puritans, with a Preface by William Ames, the celebrated Puritan divine. 


THE CONFESSION: OF FAITH 367 


the other. That our Governors after so solemn an establishment, should thus bear 
with us both, in our greater differences from their Rule, and after this, for any of us 
to take a fellow-servant by the throat, upon the account of a lesser reckoning, and 
nothing due to zm upon it: is to forget, at least not to exercise, that compassion 
and tenderness we have found, where we had less ground to challenge or expect it. 

Our Prayer unto God is, That whereto we have already attained, we all may 
walk by the same rule, and that wherein we are otherwise minded, God would reveal 
it to us in his due time. 

[xxx] Books sold by John Allen at the Sun Rising in Paz/s Church-yard. 

[list of 15 volumes]. 


A 


Tey TS LARA LON 
OF THE 


PAITH and ORDER 


Owned and practised in the 


CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES 
IN 


ENGLAND. 


CMAPS I? 
Of the holy Scripture. 

Lthough the Light of Nature, and the Works of Creation and 
A Providence, do so far manifest the Goodness, Wisdom and 
Power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not suf- 
ficient to give that knowledge of God and of his Will, which is 
necessary unto salvation: Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry 
times, and in divers maners to reveal himself, and to declare that 
his Will unto his Church; and afterwards for the better preserving 
and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment 
and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and 
the malice of Satan [2] and of the world, to commit the same 
wholly unto writing: which maketh the holy Scripture to be most 
necessary; those former ways of Gods revealing his Will unto his 
people, being now ceased. 

II. Under the name of holy Scripture, or the Word of God 
written, are now contained all the Books of the Old and New 
Testament; which are these: 





1 In presenting the text of the Confession of Faith, I have printed such portions as were taken 
from the Westminster Confession in Roman; the parts added at the Savoy are in black faced type. 
I have also given in notes all parts omztted from the Westminster Confession, following the text 
printed by Dr. Schaff in his Creeds of Christendom, III: 600-673. The few changes from the 
Savoy made by the Massachusetts Synod of 1680 are also indicated, so that this text will serve as a 
representative of that Confession also. The Saybrook Confession is identical with that of 1680, 
save that it adds proof texts to each section. 


368 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


Of the Old Testament. 


Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, 
Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 
2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, 
Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 
Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, 
Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. 


Of the New Testament. 


Matthew,’ Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Pauls 
Epistle to the Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalon- 
ians, 1 To Timothy, 2 To Timothy, To Titus, To Philemonjeiie 
Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and 
second Epistles of Peter, The first, second and third Epistles of 
John, the Epistle of Jude, The Revelation. 

[3] All which are given by the inspiration of God to be the 
Rule of Faith and Life. 

III. The Books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of 
Divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of the Scripture; and 
therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any 
otherwise approved or made use of, then other humane writings. 

IV. The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to 
be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the Testimony of any 
man or Church; but wholly upon God (who is Truth it self) the 
Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the 
Word of God. 

V. We may be moved and induced by the Testimony of the 
Church, to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture. 
And the heavenliness of the Matter, the efficacy of the Doctrine, 
the majesty of the Style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of 
the whole, (which is, to give all glory to God) the full discovery it 
makes of the onely way of Mans Salvation, the many other incom- 
parable excellencies, and the intire perfection thereof, are Augu- 
ments whereby it doth abundantly evidence it self to be the Word 
of God; Yet notwithstanding, our full perswasion and assurance 
of the infallible Truth and Divine Authority thereof, is from the 
inward work of the holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the 
Word in our hearts. 

[4] VI. The whole Counsel of God concerning all things 
necessary for his own Glory, mans Salvation, Faith and Life, is 
either expresly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary con- ° 





1 West. prefaces: The Gospels according to, 


THE CONFESSION OF FAITH 369 


sequence may be deduced from Scripture; unto which nothing at 
any time is to be added, whether by new Revelations of the Spirit, 
or Traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward 
illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving 
understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: And 
that there are some circumstances concerning the Worship of God 
and Government of the Church, common to humane actions and 
Societies, which are to be ordered by the Light of Nature and 
Christian prudence, according to the general Rules of the Word, 
which are always to be observed. 

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, 
nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be 
known, believed and observed for Salvation, are so clearly pro- 
pounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not 
onely the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary 
means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. 

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the Native 
Language of the people of God of old) and the New Testament 
in Greek (which at the time of’ writing of it was most generally 
known to the Nations) being immediately inspired by God, and by 
his singular care and providence [5] kept pure in all Ages, are 
therefore Authentical; so as in all Controversies of Religion the 
Church is finally to appeal untothem. But because these Original 
Tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right 
unto and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear 
of God to read and search them; therefore they are to be trans- 
lated into the vulgar language of every Nation unto which they 
come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may 
worship him in an acceptable maner, and through patience and 
comfort of the Scriptures may have hope. 

IX. The infallible Rule of Interpretation of Scripture, is the 
Scripture it self ; And therefore when there is a question about the 
true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but 
one) it must be searched and known by other places, that speak 
more Clearly. 

X. The Supreme Judge by which all controversies of Religion 
are to be determined, and all Decrees of Councels, Opinions of 
ancient Writers, Doctrines of men and private Spirits, are to be ex- 
amined, and in whose Sentence we are to rest, can be no other, but 
the* holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit; into which 
Scripture so delivered, our Faith is finally resolved. 





1 West. adds: ¢he. 2 West. reads: dut the Holy Spirit speaking tn the Scripture. 


370 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


[6] CHAP: II. 
Of God and of the holy Trinity. 


Here is but one onely living and true God; who is infinite in 
Being and Perfection, a most pure Spirit, invisible, without 
body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incompre- 
hensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, 
working all things according to the Counsel of his own immutable 
and most righteous Will, for his own Glory, most loving, gracious, 
merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving 
iniquity, transgression and sin, the rewarder of them that diligently 
seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his Judgements, 
hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty. 

II. God hath all Life, Glory, Goodness, Blessedness, in, and 
of himself; and is alone, in, and unto himself, All-insufficient, not * 
standing in need of any Creatures, which he hath made, nor de- 
riving any glory from them, but onely manifesting his own glory 
in, by, unto, and upon them: He is the alone Fountain’ of all 
Being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and 
hath most Soveraign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, 
or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth: In his sight all things 
are open and manifest, his Knowledge is infinite, infallible, and in- 
dependent upon the creature, so as nothing is to him contingent 
or uncertain: He is most holy in all his Counsels, in all his Works, 
and in all his Commands. [7] To him is due from Angels and 
Men, and every other Creature, whatsoever Worship, Service or 
Obedience, as Creatures, they owe unto the Creator, and 
whatever he is further pleased to require of them.’ 

III. Inthe Unity of the God-head there be three Persons, of 
one Substance, Power and Eternity, God the Father, God the Son, 
and God the holy Ghost : The Father is of none, neither begotten, 
nor proceeding ; The Son is eternally begotten of the Father ; 
The holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. 
Which Doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our 
Communion with God, and comfortable Dependence upon 
him.* 

CHAPS Lis 
Of Gods Eternal Decree. 


Od from all eternity did by the most wise and holy Counsel of 
his own Will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever 





1 Saybrook reads zor. 2 West. reads: foundation. 3 Simple addition. 4 Ibid. 


THE CONFESSION OF FAITH RAL 


comes to pass: Yet so, as thereby neither is God the Author of 
sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the Creatures, nor is the 
liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather es- 
tablished. 

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to 
pass upon all supposed Conditions, yet hath he not decreed any 
thing, because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would 
come to pass upon such Conditions. 

[8] Ill. By the Decree of God for the manifestation of his 
Glory, some Men and Angels are predestinated unto everlasting 
Life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting Death. 

IV. These Angels and Men thus predestinated, and fore-or- 
dained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their 
number isso certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased 
or diminished. 

V. Those of mankinde that are predestinated unto Life, God, 
before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his 
eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good 
pleasure of his Will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting Glory, 
out of his meer free Grace and Love, without any fore-sight of 
Faith or good Works, or perseverance in either of them or any 
other thing in the Creature, as Conditions or Causes moving him 
thereunto, and all to the praise of his glorious Grace. 

VI. As God hath appointed the Elect unto Glory, so hath he 
by the eternal and most free purpose of his Will fore-ordained all 
the means thereunto: Wherefore they who are elected, being faln 
in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto Faith 
in Christ by his spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, 
sanctified, and kept by his power, through Faith, unto salvation. 
Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or’ effectually [9| 
called, justified, adopted, sanctified and saved, but the Elect onely. 

VII. The rest of mankinde God was pleased, according to the 
unsearchable Counsel of his own Will, whereby he extendeth or 
withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his soveraign 
power over his Creatures, to pass by and to ordain them to dis- 
honor’ and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious Justice. 

VIII. The Doctrine of this high mystery of Predestination is 
to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending 
the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience 





1 Added to West. 
2 The reader will observe that this English work of the XVII. Century employs the so-called 
American spelling uniformly in such words as honor and the like. 


372 THE SAVOY "DECLARATION 


thereunto, may from the certainty of their effectual Vocation, be 
assured of their eternal Election. So shall this Doctrine afford 
matter of praise, reverence and admiration of God, and of humility, 
diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the 
Gospel. 

CHATIVLY) 


Of Creation. 


T pleased God the Father, Son and holy Ghost, for the 
| manifestation of the glory of his eternal Power, Wisdom and 
Goodness, in the beginning, to create or make out’ of nothing the 
World, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the 
space of six days, and all very good. 

[zo] II. After God had made all other creatures, he created 
Man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal Souls, 
endued with knowledge, righteousness and true holiness, after 
his own Image, having the Law of God written in their hearts, 
and power to fulfil it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, 
being left to the liberty of their own Will, which was subject unto 
change. Besides this Law written in their hearts, they received 
a command not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of good and 
evil; which whiles they kept, they were happy in their communion 
with God, and had dominion over the Creatures, 


Oe Wee 
Of Providence. 


Od the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct, 

dispose and govern all creatures, actions and things from 

the greatest even to” the least by his most wise and holy Provi- 

dence, according unto? his infallible fore-knowledge, and the free 

and immutable counsel of his own Will, to the praise of the glory 
of his Wisdom, Power, Justice, Goodness and Mercy. 

II, Although in relation to the fore-knowledge and decree 
of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably and 
infallibly; yet by the same Providence he ordereth [11] them to 
fall out, according to the nature of second Causes, either neces- 
sarily, freely, or contingently. 

III. God in his ordinary Providence maketh use of Means, 
yet is free to work without, above, and against them at his 
pleasure. 





1 Added to West. 2 1680 reads uwzZo. 3 West. and 1680 read Zo. 


THE CONFESSION OF FAITH Sie 


IV. The almighty Power, unsearchable Wisdom, and infinite 
Goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his Providence, 
in’ that his determinate Counsel’ extendeth it self even to the 
first Fall, and all other sins of Angels and Men (and that not by a 
bare permission) which also he most wisely and powerfully 
boundeth, and otherwise ordereth and governeth’ in a manifold 
Dispensation to his own most * holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness 
thereof proceedeth onely from the Creature, and not from God, who 
being most holy and righteous, neither is, nor can be the author or 
approver of sin. 

V. The most wise, righteous and gracious God doth often- 
times leave for a season his own children to manifold temptations, 
and the corruption of their own hearts, to chastise them for their 
former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of 
corruption, and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be 
humbled; and to raise them to a more close and constant depend- 
ence for their support upon’ himself, and to make them more 
watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for sundry other 
just and holy ends. 

[12] VI. As for those wicked and ungodly men, whom God 
as a righteous Judge, for former sins, doth blinde and harden, 
from them he not onely withholdeth his grace, whereby they might 
have been inlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon 
in their hearts; but sometimes also withdraweth the gifts which 
they had, and exposeth them to such objects, as their corruption 
makes occasions of sin; and withal gives them over to their own 
lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan; 
whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under 
those means which God useth for the softning of others.°® 

VII. As the Providence of God doth in general reach to all 
Creatures, so after a most special maner it taketh care of his 
Church, and disposeth all things to the good thereof. 


CP br Deve le 
Of the fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment thereof. 


God having made a Covenant of Works and Life, 
thereupon, with our first parents and all their posterity in 
them, they being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of 


1 West. omits 77. 2 West. reads 77. 
8 West. reads, dut such as hath goined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and 
otherwise ordering and governing of them in a, etc. 4 Added to West. 


5 West. reads uz¢o. 8 The Saybrook reads them, a change of some importance. 


374 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


Satan did wilfully transgress the Law of their Creation, 
and break the Covenant in eating the forbidden fruit.’ 

[x3] If By this sin they, and we in’ them} tell aromm 
original righteousness and communion with God, and so became - 
dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of 
soul and body. 

III. They being the Root, and by God’s appointment 
standing in the room and stead* of all mankinde, the guilt 
of this sin was imputed, and® corrupted nature conveyed to all 
their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. 

IV. From this Original corruption, whereby we are utterly 
indisposed, disabled and made opposite to all good, and wholly 
enclined to all evil, do proceed all Actual transgressions. 

V. This Corruption of nature during this life, doth remain 
in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ 
pardoned and mortified, yet both it self and all the motions 
thereof are truely and properly sin. 

VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgres- 
sion of the righteous Law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth 
in its own nature bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is 
bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the Law, and so 
made subject to death, with all miseries, spiritual, temporal and 
eternal. 


[14] CHAP. VIL. 
Of God’s Covenant with Man. 


*T ‘He distance between God and the Creature is so great, that 

although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him 
as their Creator, yet they could never have attained the re- 
ward of life,” but by some voluntary condecension on Gods part, 
which he hath been pleased to express by way of Covenant. 

II. The first Covenant made with man, was a Covenant of 
Works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his 
posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. 

III. Man by his fall having made himself uncapable of life 





1 This paragraph in the Westminster reads: ‘‘ Our first parents, being seduced by the 
subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was 
pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own 
glory.” 

2 A simple addition. Nothing is omitted from the West. 

3 West. inserts thezr. 4 A simple addition. 5 West. inserts, the same death in sin and. 

6 West. reads, xever have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward but, ete. 


THE CONFESSION OF FAITH 375 


by that Covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, com- 
monly called the Covenant of Grace; wherein he freely offereth 
unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them 
faith in him that they may be saved, and promising to give unto 
all those that are ordained unto life, his holy Spirit, to make them 
willing and able to believe. 

ive avis Covenant of) Grace! is Hoateade: set forth in the 
Scripture by the name of a Testament, in reference to the death 
of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting Inheritance, 
with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed. 

[15] V. Although’ this Covenant hath been differently 
and variously administred in respect of Ordinances and 
Institutions in the time of the Law, and since the coming of 
Christ in the flesh; yet for the substance and efficacy of it, 
to all its spiritual and saving ends, it is one and the same; 
upon the account of which various dispensations, it is called 
the Old and New Testament. 


CHAP. VILL 
Of Christ the Mediator. 


T pleased God, it his eternal purpose, to chuse and ordain 
| the Lord Jesus his onely begotten Son, according to a 
Covenant made between them both,’ to be the Mediator be- 
tween God and Man; the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head 
and Savior® of his Church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of 
_the World; unto whom he did from all eternity give a people to 
be his seed, and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, 
sanctified, and glorified. 





1 Here isa large variation from the West., possibly because a special chapter was to be added 
on the Gospel. The West. is as follows, in two sections: 

““V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, andin the time of 
the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the 
paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances, delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signify- 
ing Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the 
Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full 
remission of sins, and eternal salvation ; and is called the Old Testament. 

VI. Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which 
this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacra- 
ments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper ; which, though fewer in number, and administered with 
more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and 
spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles ; and is called the New Testament. There 
are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under vari- 
ous dispensations,”’ 

2 Simple insertion, nothing omitted. 

8 See ante, p. 371, note 2. 


376 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


II. The Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, be- 
ing very and eternal God of one substance, and equal with the 
Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon him 
Mans nature, with all the essential properties and common infirm- 
ities thereof, yet without sin, being conceived by the power of the 
holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary of her substance: 
So that two whole per- [16] fect and distinct natures, the Godhead 
and the Manhood, were inseparably joyned together in one Per- 
son, without conversion, composition, or confusion ; which Person 
is very God and very Man, yet one Christ, the onely Mediator 
between God and Man. 

III. The Lord Jesus in his Humane nature, thus united to 
the Divine in the Person of the Son,’ was sanctified and 
anointed with the holy Spirit above measure, having in him all 
the treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge, in whom it pleased the 
Father that all fulness should dwell, to the end that being holy, 
harmless, undefiled, and full of Grace and Truth, he might be 
throughly furnished to execute the Office of a Mediator and 
Surety ; which Office he took not unto himself, but was there- 
unto called by his Father, who also’ put all Power and Judgement 
into his hand, and gave him Commandment to execute the same. 

IV. This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake; 
which that he might discharge, he was made under the Law, and 
did perfectly fulfil it, and underwent the punishment due to 
us, which we should have born and suffered, being made 
sin and a curse for us,* enduring * most grievous torments im- 
mediately from God in his soul, and most painful sufferings in his 
body, was crucified, and died, was buried, and remained under the 
power of death, yet saw no corruption, on the third day he arose 
from the dead with the same Body in which he suffered, with which 
also he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand 
of his Father, making intercession, and shall return to judge Men 
and Angels at the end of the world. 

[17] V. The Lord Jesus by his perfect obedience and sacri- 
fice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit, once offered up 
unto God, hath fully satisfied the Justice of God,°® and purchased 
not onely reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the 
Kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given 
unto him. 


~ 





1 Simple addition, no omission. 2 Not in West. 
3 Simple addition to West. 4 West. reads exdured. 
5 West. reads zs Father. 


THE CONFESSION OF FAITH 377 


VI. Although the work of Redemption was not actually 
wrought by Christ, till after his Incarnation; yet the vertue, efficacy 
and benefits thereof were communicated to’ the Elect in all ages, 
successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those 
Promises, Types and Sacrifices wherein he was revealed and signi- 
fied to be the seed of the Woman, which should bruise the Serpents 
head, and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, being 
yesterday and to day the same, and for ever. 

VII. Christ in the work of Mediation acteth according to 
both Natures, by each Nature doing that which is proper to? it 
self; yet by reason of the unity of the Person, that which is proper 
to one Nature, is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the Person 
denominated by the other Nature. 

VIII. To all those for whom Christ hath purchased Redemp- 
tion, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the 
same, making intercession for them, and revealing unto them in 
and by the Word, the mysteries of salva- [18] tion, effectually per- 
swading them by his Spirit to believe and obey, and governing 
their hearts by his Word and Spirit, overcoming all their enemies 
by his almighty Power and Wisdom, and in such maner and ways as: 
are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation... 


CHAP. UX. 
Of Free-will. 
Od hath endued the Will of man with that natural liberty- 
and power of acting upon choice,’ that it* is neither 
forced, nor by any absolute necessity of Nature determined to do*® 
good or evil. 

II. Man in his state of Innocency had freedom and power to: 
will and to do that which was® good and well pleasing to God; but 
yet mutably, so that he might fall from it. 

III. Man by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all. 
ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as. 
a natural man being altogether averse from that good, and dead in 
sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to pre-- 
pare himself thereunto. 

IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the 
state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, 
and by his grace alone inables him freely to will [19] and to do: 

1 West. reads zzZo. 2 Saybrook reads zz. 


3 Simple addition, nothing omitted from West. 4 Ibid, 5 Tbid. 
6 West. Sree ras 


378 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his 
remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly nor onely will that 
which is good, but doth also will that which is evil. 

V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to 
good alone in the state of Glory onely. 


CHAP. X, 
Of Effectual Calling. 

Ll those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those 

onely, he is pleased in his appointed and accepted time 
effectually to call by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin 
and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by 
Jesus Christ, inightning their mindes spiritually and savingly to 
understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, 
and giving unto them an heart of flesh, renewing their wills, and 
by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and 
effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so, as they come 
most freely, being made willing by his grace. 

II. This effectual Call is of Gods free and special grace alone, 
not from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive 
therein, untill being quickned and renewed by the holy Spirit he 
is thereby enabled to answer this Call, and to embrace the grace 
offered and conveyed in it. 

[zo] III. Elect Infants dying in Infancy, are regenerated 
and saved by Christ,' who worketh when, and where, and how he 
pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are uncapable of 
being outwardly called by the Ministery of the Word. 

IV. Others not elected, although they may be called by the 
Ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of 
the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, 
they neither do nor can’ come unto Christ, and therefore can- 
not be saved; much less can men not professing the Christian 
Religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so 
diligent to frame their lives according to the Light of Nature, and 
the Law of that Religion they do profess: And to assert and 
maintain that they may, 1s very pernicious, and to be detested. 


OHS Ws hae Gl 
Of Justification. 


Hose whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth, 
not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning 





1 West. adds, through the Spirit. 2 West. reads, yet they never truly come unto Christ. 


THE CONFESSION OF FAITH 379 


their sins, and by accounting and accepting their person as right- 
eous, not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for 
Cirists sake alone; nor by imputing Faith it self, the act of 
believing, or any other Evangelical obedience to them, as their 
righteousness, but by imputing Christs active obedience unto’ 
the whole Law, and [21] passive obedience in his death 
for their whole and sole righteousness,’ they receiving and 
resting on him and his righteousness by Faith; which Faith they 
have not of themselves, it is the gift of God. 

II. Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ, and his right- 
eousness,.is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not 
alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other 
Saving graces, and is no dead Faith, but worketh by Love. 

III. Christ by his Obedience and Death did fully discharge 
the Debt of all those that are*® justified, and did by the sacrifice 
of himself, in the blood of his Cross, undergoing in their 
stead the penalty due unto them’ make a proper, real, and 
full satisfaction to Gods’ Justice in their behalf: Yet in as much 
as he was given by the Father for them, and his Obedience and 
Satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for any 
thing in them, their justification is onely of free grace, that both 
the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the 
justification of sinners. 

IV. God did from all eternity decree to justifie all the Elect, 
and Christ did in the fulness of time dye for their sins, and rise 
again for their justification: Nevertheless, they are not justified 
personally,’ until the holy Spirit doth in due time actually apply 
‘Christ unto them. 

[22] V. God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that 
are justified; and although they can never fall from the state 
of justification, yet they may by their sins fall under Gods fatherly 
displeasure: and in that condition they have not usually’ the 
light of his Countenance restored unto them, until they humble 
themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith 
and repentance. 

VI. The justification of Believers under the old Testament, 
was in all these respects one and the same with the justification of 
Believers under the new Testament. 





1 Saybrook reads /o. 

2 West. reads, but by tmputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they 
receiving, etc. 

3 West. adds, thus. 4 A simple insertion, nothing is omitted from West. 

5 West. reads, hzs Father's. 8 Not in West. 

7 West. reads, and not have the light, etc. 


380 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


CEVA peg, 

Of Adoption. 
Ll those that are justified, God vouchsafeth in’ and for his 
onely Son Jesus Christ to make partakers of the grace of 
Adoption, by which they are taken into the number, and enjoy the 
liberties and priviledges of the Children of God, have his Name 
put upon them, receive the Spirit of Adoption, have access to the 
Throne of Grace with boldness, are enabled to cry Abba Father, 
are pitied, protected, provided for, and chastened by him as bya 
father, yet never cast off, but sealed to the day of Redemption, 

and inherit the promises as Heirs of everlasting Salvation. 


[23] CHAP. XIII. 
Of Sanctification. 


Hey that are united to Christ, effectually called and regen- 
erated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, 
through the vertue of Christs death and resurrection, are also 
further sanctified really and personally through the same ver- 
tue,’ by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of 
the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof 
are more and more weakned, and mortified, and they more and 
more quickned, and strengthned in all saving graces, to the prac- 
tice of all true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. 
II. This Sanctification is throughout in the whole man, yet 
imperfect in this life, there abideth® still some remnants of cor- 
ruption in every part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcile- 
able war, the flesh lusting against the spirit, and the spirit against 
theitlesh: 

III. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a 
time may much prevail, yet through the continual supply of 
strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part 
doth overcome, and so the Saints grow in grace, perfecting holi- 
ness in the fear of God. 





1 Saybrook omits 7x. 

2 This passage is somewhat altered from the Westminster, which reads, ‘‘ They who are 
effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further 
sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by his 
Word and Spirit,’ etc. The Confession of 1680, as usual, follows the Savoy, save in the first line: 
“ They that are effectually called,” etc., z. e., almost a restoration of the Westminster reading. 

3 1680 reads, abzde. 


THE CONFESSION OF FAITH 381 


[24] CHAP. XIV. 
Of saving faith, 

He grace of Faith, whereby the Elect are inabled to believe 

to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of 

Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the Ministery 

of the Word; by which also, and by the administration of the 

Seals, Prayer, and other means,’ it is increased and strength- 
ened. 

II. By this Faith a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever 
is revealed in the Word, for the Authority of God himself speaking 
therein, and acteth differently upon that which each particular 
passage thereof containeth, yielding obedience to the commands, 
trembling at the threatnings, and embracing the promises of God 
for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of 
saving Faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ 
alone, for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by vertue of 
the covenant of Grace. 

Ill. This Faith, although it be different in degrees, and 
may be weak or strong, yet it is in the least degree of it 
different in the kind or nature of it (as is all other saving 
grace) from the faith and common grace of temporary be- 
lievers; and therefore, though it may be many times assailed 
and weakened,’ yet it gets the victory, growing up in many to the 
attainment of a full assurance through Christ, who is both the 
author and finisher of our Faith. 


[25] CEPA By Viv. 
Of Repentance unto life and salvation.°® 


Uch of the Elect as are converted at riper years, hav- 

ing sometime lived in the state of nature, and therein 

served divers lusts and pleasures, God in their effectual 
calling giveth them Repentance unto life, 





1 This passage in the West. reads, administration of the sacraments and prayer, tt ts, 
etc. 

2 Here the Savoy has considerable additional matter. The West. reads, ‘‘ This faith is dif- 
ferent in degrees, weak or strong; may be often and many ways assailed and weakened, but gets 
the victory ;”’ etc. 

3 This chapter is wholly rewritten and rearranged. In the Westminster it reads, 

“Of Repentance Unto Life. 

Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every 
minister of the gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ. 

IJ. By it a sinner, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthi- 
ness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God, and upon 
the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as 


1d 


AL 


382 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


II.. Whereas there is none that doth good, and sin- 
neth not, and the best of men may through the power and 
deceitfulness of their corruptions dwelling in them, with 
the prevalency of temptation, fall into great sins and 
provocations; God hath in the covenant of Grace merci- 
fully provided, that Believers so sinning and falling, be 
renewed through repentance unto Salvation. 

Ill. This saving Repentance is an Evangelical Grace,’ 
whereby a person being by the holy Ghost made sensible 
of the manifold evils of his sin, doth by Faith in Christ 
humble himself for it with godly sorrow, detestation of it, 
and self-abhorrency, praying for pardon and strength of 
Grace, with a purpose, and endeavor by supplies of the 
Spirit, to walk before God unto all well-pleasing in all 
things. 

IV. As Repentance is to be continued through the 
whole course of our lives, upon the account of the body of 
death, and the motions thereof; so it is every mans duty to 
repent of his particular known sins particularly.’ 

[26] V. Such is the provision which God hath made 
through Christ in the covenant of Grace, for the preser- 
vation of Believers unto salvation, that although there is 
no sin so small, but it deserves damnation; yet there is no sin so 
great, that it shall® bring damnation on them * who truly repent;° 
which makes the constant preaching of Repentance 
necessary. 





to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with him, in all the ways of 
his commandments. 

Ill. Although repentance be not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of 
the pardon thereof, which is the act of God’s free grace in Christ; yet is it of such necessity to all 
sinners, that none may expect pardon without it. 

IV. As there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation ; so there is no sin so great, that it 
can bring damnation upon those who truly repent. 

V. Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man’s 
duty to endeavour to repent of his particular sins, particularly. 

VI. As every man is bound to make private confession of his sins to God, praying for the 
pardon thereof, upon which, and the forsaking of them, he shall find mercy: so he that scanda- 
lizeth his brother, or the Church of Christ, ought to be willing, by a private or public confession 
and sorrow for his sin, to declare his repentance to those that are offended; who are thereupon to 
be reconciled to him, and in love to receive him.”’ 

1 Compare note above, section I. 

2 Compare note above, section V. 

3 West. reads caz. 

4 Ibid., wfon those. 

5 Compare note above, section IV. 


THE CONFESSION OF FAITH 383 


GHAP. XVI. 
Of good Works. 


Ood works are onely such as God hath commanded in his holy 

Word, and not such as without the warrant thereof are de- 

vised by men out of blinde zeal, or upon any pretence of good in- 
tentions. ’ 

II. These good Works done in obedience to Gods command- 
ments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively Faith, and 
by them Believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their as- 
surance, edifie their Brethren, adorn the profession of the Gospel, 
stop the mouthes of the adversaries, and glorifie God, whose work- 
manship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that having 
their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end eternal life. 

[27] II. Their ability to do good works is not at all of 
themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ: And that they 
may be enabled thereunto, besides the graces they have already 
received, there is required an actual influence of the same holy 
Spirit to work in them to will and to do, of his good pleasure ; yet 
are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound 
to perform any duty, unless upon a special motion of the Spirit, 
but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that 
is in them. 

IV. They who in their obedience attain to the greatest height 
which is possible in this life, are so far from being able to superer- 
ogate, and to do more then God requires, as that they fall short of 
much, which in duty they are bound to do. 

V. We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or 
eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great dispropor- 
tion that is between them, and the glory to come; and the infinite 
distance that is between us, and God, whom by them we can 
neither profit, nor satisfie for the debt of our former sins; but 
when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and 
are unprofitable servants: and because as they are good, they 
proceed from his Spirit, and as they are wrought by us, they are 
defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that 
they cannot endure the severity of Gods judgement. * 

[28] VI. Yet notwithstanding, the persons of Believers 
being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted 
in him, not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable 





1 West. reads, zztentzon. 
2 Saybrook reads, yudgments. 


384 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


and unreproveable in Gods sight, but that he looking upon them 
in his son is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, al- 
though accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections. 

VII. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the mat- 
ter of them they may be things which God commands, and of good 
use both to themselves and to’ others: yet because they proceed 
not from a heart purified by Faith, nor are done in a right maner, 
according to the Word, nor to aright end, the glory of God; they 
are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, nor make a man meet 
to receive grace from God; and yet their neglect of them is more 
sinful, and displeasing unto God. 


CHsé Pe OviLi: 
Of the Perseverance of the Satnts. 


Hey whom God hath accepted in his beloved, effectually called 

and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall 

away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein 
to the end, and be eternally saved. 

[29] Il. This Perseverance of the Saints depends not upon 
their own free-will, but upon the immutability of the Decree of 
Election,? from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, 
upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, 
and union with him, the oath of God,* the abiding of his* 
Spirit, and of ® the seed of God within them, and the nature of the 
Covenant of Grace, from all which ariseth also the certainty and 
infallibility thereof. 

Ill. And though’ they may through the temptation of 
Satan, and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in 
them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into 
grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur 
Gods displeasure and grieve his holy Spirit, come to have 
their graces and comforts impaired,’ have their hearts 
hardned, and their consciences wounded, hurt and_ scandal- 
ize others, and bring temporal judgements tipon themselves; 
yet they are and shall be kept by the power of God through 
faith unto salvation.* 





1 Not in West. 2 West. adds, fow7ng, 
3 A simple addition, nothing omitted from West. 4 West. reads, ¢he, 
6 1680 qmits of. 6 Ibid,, Nevertheless. 


7 West. reads, come to be deprived of some measure of thetr graces and comforts. 
8 An addition, West. ends with themselves, ’ 


THE CONFESSION OF FAITH 385 


fOr ee VILL: 
Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation. 


Lthough temporary believers’ and other unregenerate 
men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes, and 
carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and state?’ of 
salvation, which hope of theirs shall perish; yet [30] such as 
truely believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, en- 
deavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may in this life 
be certainly assured that they are in the * state of Grace, and may 
rejoyce in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never 
make them ashamed. | 

II. This* certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable 
perswasion, grounded upon a fallible hope, but an infallible assur- 
ance of faith, founded on the blood and righteousness of 
Christ, revealed in the Gospel, and also upon the inward evi- 
dence of those graces unto which promises are made, and on the 
immediate witness of the Spirit, testifying our Adoption, 
and as a fruit thereof, leaving the heart more humble 
and holy. 

Ill. This infallible Assurance doth not. so belong to the 
essence of Faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and con- 
flict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it; yet being 
inabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given 
him of God, he may without extraordinary revelation in the right 
use of ordinary means attain thereunto: And therefore it is the 
duty of every one to give all diligence to make his® calling and 
election sure, that thereby his heart may be inlarged in peace and 
joy in the holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in 
strength and chearfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper 
fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to loos- 
ness. 

[31] IV. True believers may have the assurance of their 
salvation divers ways shaken, diminished and intermitted, as by 
negligence in preserving of it, by falling into some special sin, 
which woundeth the conscience, and grieveth the Spirit, by some 





1 West. reads, hypocrites. 2 Ibid., estate. 3 [bid., a. 

4 This paragraph is rewritten, In the West. it reads, ‘t This certainty is not a bare conjectural 
and probable persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith, 
founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces 
unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our 
spirits that we are the children of God: which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we 
are sealed to the day of redemption,”’ 

5 Saybrook reads ¢he/r. 


386 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


sudden or vehement temptation, by Gods withdrawing the light of 
his countenance,’ suffering even such as fear him to walk in dark- 
ness, and to have no light; yet are they neither’ utterly destitute 
of that seed of God, and life of Faith, that love of Christ and the 
Brethren, that sincerity of heart and conscience of duty, out of 
which by the operation of the Spirit this assurance may in due time 
be revived, and by the which in the mean time they are supported 
from utter despair. 


CTUAPS AIX: 
Of the Law of God. 


Od gave to Adam a Law of universal obedience written 

in his heart, and a particular precept of not eating 

the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil,’ as a 

Covenant of Works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to 

personal, entire, exact and perpetual obedience, promised life upon 

the fulfilling, and threatned death upon the breach of it, and in- 
dued him with power and ability to keep it. 

II. This Law so written in the heart, continued to bea 
per-[32]fect Rule of righteousness after the fall of man,* and 
was delivered by God upon’ mount Sinai in ten Commandments, 
and written in two Tables; the four first Commandments contain- 
ing our duty towards God, and the other six our duty to man. 

III. Beside this Law commonly called Moral, God was 
pleased to give to the people of Israel® Ceremonial Laws, contain- 
ing several Typical Ordinances, partly of Worship,’ prefiguring 
Christ, his Graces, Actions, Sufferings and Benefits, and partly 
holding forth divers Instructions of Moral Duties: All which Cere- 
monial Laws being appointed onely to the time of Reforma- 
tion, are by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and onely Law- 
giver, who was furnished with power from the Father for 
that end, abrogated and taken away.* 

IV. To them also*® he gave sundry Judicial Laws, which ex- 
pired together with the State of that people, not obliging any now 


1 West. adds azd. 2 West. reads zever. 

8 A simple addition, nothing is omitted from West. 

4 In the West. this reads, ‘‘ This law, after his fall, continued to bea perfect rule of righteous- 
ness ; and as such, was delivered by God,”’ etc. 

5 1680 and Saybrook read, oz. 

6 West., 1680, and Saybrook add, as a church under age. 

7 Saybrook reads, Worshiping. 

8 West. reads, All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament. 

9 West. adds, as a body politic. 


THE CONFESSION OF FAITH 387 


by vertue of that institution, their general equity onely being 
still of moral use.’ 

V. The Moral Law doth for ever binde all, as well justified 
persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not onely in 
regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the 
Authority of God the Creator, who gave it: neither doth Christ in 
the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation. 

[33] VI. Although true Believers be not under the Law, as a 
Covenant of Works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet it 
is of great use to them as well as to others, in that, as a rule of life, 
informing them of the Will of God, and their duty, it directs and 
bindes them to walk accordingly, discovering also the sinful pollu- 
tions of their nature, hearts and lives, so as examining them- 
selves thereby, they may come to further conviction of humiliation 
for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the 
need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. It 
is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, 
in that it forbids sin, and the threatnings of it serve to shew what 
even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may 
expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatned 
in the Law. The promises of it in like maner shew them Gods 
approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect 
upon the performance thereof, although not as due to them by the 
Law, as a Covenant of Works; so as a mans doing good, and re- 
fraining from evil, because the Law incourageth to the one, and 
deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the 
Law, and not under Grace. 

VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the Law contrary 
to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it, the 
Spirit of Christ subduing and inabling the will of man to do that 
freely and chearfully, which the will of God revealed in the Law 
required” to be done. 


[34] CHAP. 3ex)* 


Of the Gospel, and of the extent of 
the Grace‘ thereof. 


He Covenant of Works being broken by sin, and made 
unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give unto 


1 West. reads, xot obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may 
require. 
2 West. reads, reguzreth. 
8 This whole chapter is an addition of the Savoy to the Westminster. 
» 4 Saybrook reads, Graces. 


388 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


the Elect the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, 
as the means of calling them, and begetting in them Faith 
and Repentence: In this promise the Gospel, as to the 
substance of it, was revealed, and was therein effectual 
for the conversion and salvation of sinners. 

Il. This promise of Christ, and salvation by him, is 
revealed onely in and by the Word of God; neither do 
the works of Creation or Providence, with the Light of 
Nature, make discovery of Christ, or of Grace by him, so 
much as in a general or obscure way; much less that 
men destitute of the revelation of him by the Promise or 
Gospel, should be enabled thereby to attain saving Faith 
or Repentance. 

Ill. The revelation of the Gospel unto sinners, made 
in divers times, and by sundry parts, with the addition of 
Promises and Precepts for the obedience required therein, 
as to the Nations and persons to whom it is granted, 
is meerly of the Soveraign will and good pleasure of 
God, not being annexed by vertue of any promise to the 
due im-[35]| provement of mens natural abilities, by vertue 
of common light received without it, which none ever did 
make or can so do: And therefore in all ages the Preach- 
ing of the Gospel hath been granted unto persons and 
nations, as to the extent or straitning of it, in great 
variety, according to the counsel of the will of God. 

IV. Although the Gospel be the onely outward means 
of revealing Christ and saving Grace, and is as such 
abundantly sufficient thereunto; yet that men who are 
dead in trespasses, may be born again, quickned or 
regenerated, there is moreover necessary an effectual, 
irresistible work of the holy Ghost upon the whole soul, 
for the producing in them a new Spiritual life, without 
which no other means are sufficient for their conversion 
unto God. 

CHAR xt) 
Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience. 


He Liberty which Christ hath purchased for Believers under 
the Gospel, consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, 

the condemning wrath of God, the rigor and curse of the’ Law, 
1 This is chapter XX. in the Westminster, from this point onward the numbering of the 


chapters in the West. and Savoy is not identical. 
2 West. reads, the curse of the moral law. 


THE CONFESSION OF FAITH S85 


and in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage 
to Satan, and dominion of sin, from the evil of afflictions, the 
fear and’ sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting 
damnation; as also in their free access to God, and their yielding 
obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a childe-like [36] 
love and willing minde: All which were common also to Believers 
under the Law, for the substance of them;* but under the 
New Testament the liberty of Christians is further inlarged in 
their freedom from the yoak of the Ceremonial Law, the whole 
Legal administration of the Covenant of Grace,* to which 
the Jewish Church was subjected, and in greater boldness of access 
to the throne of Grace, and in fuller communications of the free 
Spirit of God, then Believers under the Law did ordinarily 
partake of. 

II. Gcd alone is Lord of the Conscience, and hath left it free 
from the Doctrines and Commandments of men, which are in any 
thing contrary to his Word, or not contained in it;* so that to 
believe such Doctrines, or to obey such Commands out of con- 
science, is to betray true Liberty of Conscience ; and the requiring 
of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blinde obedience, is to 
destroy Liberty of Conscience, and Reason also. 

III. They who upon pretence of Christian Liberty do practise 
any sin, or cherish any lust, as they do thereby pervert the 
main designe of the Grace of the Gospel to their own 
destruction; so they wholly ° destroy the end of Christian 
Liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our 
enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and 
righteousness before him all the days of our life.° 


1 Simple addition, nothing omitted from West. 

2 Tbid. 3 bid. 

4 West. reads, or bes7de it 7x matters of faith or worship. 

5 Ibid., Zust, do thereby destroy, etc. 

6 The West. has this fourth paragraph which the Savoy, following the example of Parlia- 
ment, omitted, 

“ITV. And because the power which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath 
purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another ; 
they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise 
of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And for their publishing of 
such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the 
known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or to the 
power of godliness ; or such erroneous opinions or practices, as, either in their own nature, or in the 
manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which 
Christ hath established in the church; they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded 
against by the censures of the church, [and by the power of the Civil Magistrate].’? The clause 
enclosed in brackets has been omitted by modern American Presbyterians, 


390 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


[37] CHAP. XXIL.} 
Of religious Worship, and the Sabbath-day. 


He light of Nature sheweth that there is a God, who hath 
Lordship and Soveraignty over all, is just,’ good, and doth 
good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called 
upon, trusted in, and served with all the heart, and all the soul, 
and with all the might: But the acceptable way of worshipping 
the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by® his own 
revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the 
imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, 
under any visibie representations, or any other way not prescribed 
in the holy Scripture. 

II. Religious Worship is to be given to God the Father, Son, 
and holy Ghost, and to him alone; not to Angels, Saints, or any 
other Creatures;* and since the Fall, not without a Mediator, nor 
in the mediation of any other but of Christ alone. 

III. Prayer with thanksgiving, being one special part of 
natural’ worship, is by God required of all men; but*® that it may 
be accepted, it is to be made in the name of the Son by the help 
of his Spirit, according to his will, with understanding, reverence, 
humility, fervency, faith, love, and perseverance; and when with 
others’ in a known tongue. 


[38] IV. Prayer is to be made for things lawful, and for 
all sorts of men living, or that shall live hereafter, but not for the 
dead, nor for those of whom it may be known that they have 
sinned the sin unto death. 

V. The* reading of the Scriptures, Preaching, and hearing 
the word of God, singing of Psalms, as also the administration of 
Baptism and the Lords Supper, are all parts of religious 
Worship of God, to be performed in obedience unto God with 
understanding, faith, reverence, and godly fear: Solemn Humil- 
iations, with Fastings and Thanksgiving upon special occasions, 


1 West. chapter XXI. 2 Simple addition, nothing omitted from West. 3 West reads, Zo. 

4 West. reads, creature. 5 West. reads, religzous. 6 West. reads, and. 

7 West. reads, and ¢f vocal in a known tongue. 

8 This section is re-written. The West. reads, 

‘“V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching; and conscionable 
hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of 
psalms with grace in the heart ; as, also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacra- 
ments instituted by Christ ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: besides religious 
oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon several * occasions: which are, in their sev- 
eral times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.”’ 

* The American Presbyterians have adopted the Savoy emendation, sfeczad. 


THE “CONFESSION OF “FAITH 391 


are in their several times and seasons to be used in a holy and 
religious maner. 

VI. Neither Prayer nor any other part of religious Wor- 
ship, is now under the Gospel either tyed unto, or made 
more acceptable by any place, in which it is performed, or 
towards which it is directed; but God is to be worshipped 
every where in spirit and in’ truth, as in private families 
daily, and in secret each one by himself, so more solemnly in the 
publique assemblies, which are not carelesly nor’ wilfully to be 
neglected, or forsaken, when God by his Word or Providence 
calleth thereunto. 

VII. As it is of the law of Nature, that in general a? pro- 
portion of time by Gods appointment* be set apart for the 
worship of God; so by® his Word in‘* a positive, moral, and per- 
[39] petual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath 
particularly appointed one day in seaven for a Sabbath to be kept 
holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the 
resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week, and from the 
resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, 
which in Scripture is called the Lords day, and is to be continued 
to the end of the World as the Christian Sabbath, the observa- 
tion of the last day of the week being abolished.’ 

VIII. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when 
men after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering® their 
common affairs beforehand, do not onely observe an holy rest all 
the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their 
worldly imployments and recreations, but also are taken up the 
whole time in the publique and private exercises of his Worship, 
and in the duties of Necessity and Mercy. 


GHAR Xr 
Of lawful Oaths and Vows. 
aN Lawful Oath is a part of religious Worship, wherein’® the 


person swearing in truth, righteousness and judgement,” 
solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth or promiseth, 





1 This addition of the Savoy is also accepted by American Presbyterians. 


2 West. reads, ov. 3 West. adds, due. 

4 A simple addition, nothing omitted from West. 5 West. reads, zz. 

6 Ibid., dy. 7 An addition, West. ends with Saddath. 
8 West. inserts of 9 West. chapter XXII. 


10 West. reads wherein, upon just occasion, the person, etc. 
11 A simple addition, nothing omitted from West. 


302 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


and to judge him according to the truth or falshood of what he 
sweareth, 

[40] II. The name of God onely is that by which men 
ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear 
and reverence: Therefore to swear vainly, or rashly, by that glori- 
ous or’ dreadful name, or to swear at all by any other thing, is 
sinful and to be abhorred; yet as in matters of weight and mo- 
ment an Oath is warranted by the Word of God under the new 
Testament, as well as under the Old; so a lawful Oath, being im- 
posed by lawful authority in such matters, ought to be taken. 

III. Whosoever taketh an Oath warranted by the Word of 
God,’ ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, 
and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully perswaded is 
the truth: neither may any man binde himself by Oath to any 
thing, but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, 
and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is asin to 
refuse an Oath touching any thing that is good and just, being 
lawfully® imposed by Authority. 

IV. An Oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of 
the words, without equivocation or mental reservation: It cannot 
oblige to sin, but in any thing not sinful, being taken it bindes 
to performance, although to a mans own hurt; nor is it to be 
violated, although made to Hereticks or Infidels. 

[41] V. A Vow, which is not to be made to any Crea- 
ture, but God alone,’ is of the like nature with a promissory 
Oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to 
be performed with the like faithfulness.° 

VI. Popish monastical Vows of perpetual single life, pro- 
fessed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being de- 
grees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful 
snares, in which no Christian may intangle himself. 





1 West. reads, azd. 2 A simple addition to West. 

3 West. reads, dezng tneposed by lawful authority. 

4 A simple addition, nothing omitted from West. The words are taken from West., section 
VI, see note below. 

5 Between section V. and VI. the Savoy omits one whole section and part of a second from 
the Westminster. They read as follows, 

‘*VI. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: and that it may be accepted, 
it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy 
received, or for the obtaining of what we want, whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to neces- 
sary duties, or to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto. 

VII. Noman may vow to do any thing forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hin- 
der any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance 
whereof he hath no promise or ability from God. In which respects, popish monastical vows of 
perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of 
higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle 
himself,’’ 


THE CONFESSION OF FAITH 393 


CHAPSI’ 
Of the Civil Magistrate. 


Od the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath 

ordained civil Magistrates to be under him, over the people 

for his own glory and the publique good; and to this end hath 

armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and in- 

couragement of them that do’ good, and for the punishment of 
evil doers. 

II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the 
Office of a Magistrate, when called thereunto: in the management’ 
whereof, as they ought specially to maintain’ Justice and Peace, 
according to the wholsome Laws of each Commonwealth; so for 
that end they may lawfully now [42] under the new Testament 
wage war upon just and necessary occasion. 

Ill. Although’ the Magistrate is bound to incourage, 
promote, and protect the professor and profession of the 
Gospel, and to manage and order civil administrations in 
a due subserviency to the interest of Christ in the world, 
and to that end to take care that men of corrupt mindes 
and conversations do not licentiously publish and divulge 
Blasphemy and Errors in their own nature, subverting 
the faith, and inevitably destroying the souls of them that 
receive them: Yet in such differences about the Doc- 
trines of the Gospel, or ways of the worship of God, as 
may befall men exercising a good conscience, manifest- 
ing it in their conversation, and holding the foundation, 
not disturbing others in their ways or worship that differ 
from them; there is no warrant for the Magistrate under 
the Gospel to abridge them of their liberty. 





1 West. chapter XXIII. 2 West. reads, are. 

3 Ibid., managing. 4 West. adds, pzety. 

5 This section has been more revised than any other in the Westminster confession, and is the 
only variation of moment between the Confessions of 1680 and of Saybrook, and the Savoy. The 
section omitted from the West. by the Savoy is as follows: 

‘““III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and 
Sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is 
his duty to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be 
kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in 
worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, admin- 
istered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof he hath power to call synods, to be present 
at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.’’ 

The new section adopted at the Savoy did not however commend itself to the Massachusetts 
divinesat Bostonin 1680 or their followers at Saybrook in 1708. They rejected the greater part of the 
Savoy section and adopted in its stead the following, based in part on the IVth section of chapter 
XXI. (West. ch. XX.) rejected from the West. by the Savoy; see aztze, p. 380, note 6. 

Eelulss hey oe upon pretense of Christian liberty shall oppose any lawful power, or the 


f 


394 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


IV. Itis the duty of people to pray for Magistrates, to honor 
their persons, to pay them Tribute and other dues, to obey their 
lawful commands, and to be subject to their Authority for con- 
science sake, Infidelity, or difference in Religion, doth not make 
void the Magistrates just and legal Authority, nor free the 
people from theiir’ obedience to him: from which ecclesiastical 
persons are not exempted, much less hath the Pope any power or 
jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their 
people, and least of all to deprive them of their dominions 
or lives, if he shall judge them to be Hereticks, or upon any other 
pretence whatsoever. 


[43] CHAPS KXV.? 
Of Marriage.* 

Arriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither 
M is it lawful for any man to have more then one wife, nor 
for any woman to have more then one husband at the same time. 

II. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of- husband 
and wife, for the increase of mankinde with a legitimate issue, and 
of the Church with an holy seed, and for preventing of* unclean- 
ness. 

III. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able 


lawful exercises of it, resist the Ordinance of God, and for their publishing of such opinions, or 
maintaining of such practices as are contrary to the Light of Nature, or to the known Principles of 
Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation, or to the power of godliness, or 
such erronious opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing 
or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath estab- 
lished in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures 
of the Church, and by the power of the civil Magistrate; yet in such differences about the Doctrines 
of the Gospel, or wayes of the worship of God, as may befal men exercising a good conscience, 
manifesting it in their conversation, and holding the foundation, and duely observing the Rules of 
peace and order, there is no warrant for the Magistrate to abridge them of their liberty.”’ 

American Presbyterians have made a further revision, changing the West. Conf., in 1788, as 
follows, 

“TIT, Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and 
Sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in 
matters of faith. Yet as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of 
our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, 
in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned 
liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as 
Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any com- 
monwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary 
members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the 
duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effect- 
ual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretence of religion or infidelity, to offer any 
indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all 
religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance. 

1 Misprint. 2 West., chapter XXIV. 

3 West. adds, axd Divorce. 4 Saybrook omits of 


THE CONFESSION OF FAITH 395 


with judgement to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Chris- 
tians to marry’ in the Lord, and therefore such as profess the true 
Reformed religion, should not marry with Infidels, Papists, or 
other Idolaters: neither should such as are godly, be unequally 
yoaked by marrying with such as are? wicked in their life, or 
maintain damnable Heresie.* 

IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consan- 
guinity or affinity forbidden in the Word; nor can such incestuous 
Marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man, or consent of 
parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife.* 


[44] CHAP, XXVI.5 
Of the Church. 


He Catholique or Universal Church, which is invisible, consists 

of the whole number of the Elect, that have been, are, or 

shall be gathered into one under Christ, the Head thereof, and is°® 
the Spouse, the Body, the fulness of him that filleth all’ in all. 

Il. The* whole body of men throughout the world, 

professing the faith of the Gospel and obedience unto God 

by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own pro- 


1 West. adds, onZy. 2 West. adds, zotortously. 3 West. reads, hereszes. 
4 At this point the Savoy, following the example of Parliament, makes a large omission from 
the Westminster. The latter reads as follows, from the point where the Savoy concludes: ‘' The 


man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the 
woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood than of her own. 

VY. Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, 
giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after 
marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry 
another, as if the offending party were dead. 

VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put 
asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such wil- 
ful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of 
dissolving the bond of marriage; wherein a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be ob- 
served; and the persons concerned in it, not left to their own wills and discretion in their own 
case.” 

5 West., chapter XXV. 6 Saybrook omits zs. 7 Ibid. adds and. 

8 The remaining sections of this chapter have been much changed in the Savoy. In the 
West. section II. reads: 

““TI. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel, (not confined 
to one nation as before under the law) consists of all those, throughout the world, that profess the 
true religion, and of their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house 
and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.”’ 

The III. and IV. sections of the West. are wholly omitted from the Savoy, they are: 

“III. Unto this catholic visible Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordi- 
nances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: 
and doth by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto. 

IV. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible. And particu- 
lar churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the 
gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less 
purely in them.”’ 


396 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


fession by any Errors everting the foundation, or unholi- 
ness of conversation,’ are, and may be called the visible 
Catholique Church of Christ, although as such it is not 
intrusted with the administration of any Ordinances, or 
have any officers to rule or govern in, or over the whole 
Body.’ 

Ill. The* purest Churches under heaven are subject both to 
mixture and error, and some have so degenerated as to become no 
Churches of Christ, but Synagogues of Satan: Nevertheless Christ 
always hath had, and ever shall have a visible Kingdom 
in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, 
and make profession of his name.’ 

IV. There® is no other) Head of the Church Dutethemi: 
Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be [45]| 
Head thereof; but it is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of 
perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and 
all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the 
brightness of his coming.* 

V. As’ the Lord in his care and love towards his 
Church, hath in his infinite wise providence exercised it 
with great variety in all ages, for the good of them that 
love him, and his own Glory: so according to his prom- 
ise, we expect that in the later days, Antichrist being 
destroyed, the Jews called, and the adversaries of the 
Kingdom of his dear Son broken, the Churches of Christ 
being inlarged, and edified through a free and plentiful 
communication of light and grace, shall enjoy in this world 
a more quiet, peaceable and glorious condition then they 
have enjoyed. 

CHAP. XXVII.8 
Of the Communion of Saints. 
LL Saints that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by his 
Spirit and® Faith, although they are not made thereby 
one person with him,” have fellowship” in his Graces, Sufferings, 
Death, Resurrection and Glory: and being united to one another 





1 The Confessions of 1680 and Saybrook add, they and their children with them,— doubtless 
influenced by the Half-Way Covenant. 
2 Ibid. read, ‘‘ although as such it is not intrusted with any Officersto rule or govern over the 


whole body.” 
3 This is section V. of the West. 
4 The West. closes thus: ‘* Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to 
worship God according to his will.’’ 5 'This is section VI. of the West. 
6 A simple addition, nothing omitted from West. 7 This hasno corresponding section in West. 
8 West. chapter XXVI, 9 West. adds, dy. 


10 A simple addition, nothing omitted from West. 11 West. adds, w7zth Aime. 


THE CONFESSION OF FAITH 397 


in love, they have communion in each others gifts and graces, and 
are obliged to the performance of such duties, publique and pri- 
vate, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and 
outward Man. 

[46] II. All* Saints are bound to maintain an holy fellowship 
and communion in the Worship of God, and in performing such 
other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification; as also 
in relieving each other in outward things, according to their several 
abilities and necessities: which communion, though especially to 
be exercised by them in the relations wherein they stand, 
whether in Families or Churches, yet’ as God offereth oppor- 
tunity, is to be extended unto all those who in every place call 
upon the Name of the Lord Jesus.’ 


CHAPS XX Vill;3 
Of the Sacraments. 


Siitaiian are holy Signs and Seals of the Covenant of Grace, 
immediately instituted by Christ,° to represent him ° and his 
benefits, and to confirm our interest in him,’ and solemnly to en- 
gage us* to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word. 
IJ. There is in every Sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacra- 
mental union between the signe and the thing signified; whence it 
comes to pass that the names and’ effects of the one are attributed 
to the other. 

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the Sacraments 
rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them, neither [47] 
doth the efficacy of a Sacrament depend upon the piety or inten- 
tion of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the 
Spirit, and the word of Institution, which contains together with a 
Precept authorizing the use thereof,a Promise of benefit to worthy 
Teceivers, 

IV. There be onely two Sacraments ordained by Christ our 
Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Lords” Supper; 


1 West. reads, Saznts, by profession, are bound, etc. 

2 Simple addition, nothing omitted from West. 

3 At this point the Savoy rejected the following section of the West.: “III. This communion 
which the saints have with Christ, doth not make them in anywise partakers of the substance of his 
Godhead, or to be equal with Christ in any respect: either of which to affirm is impious and blas- 
phemous. Nor doth their communion one with another, as saints, take away or infringe the title or 
propriety which each man hath in his goods and possessions.”’ 

4 West. chapter X XVII. 5 West. reads, God. 6 Ibid., Chrzsz. 

7 West. adds, as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church 
and the rest of the world. 

8 West. reads, the7z. 9 West. adds, the. 10 West. reads, Supper of the Lord. 


398 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


neither of which may be dispensed by any but a Minister of the 
Word lawfully called.’ 

V. The Sacraments of the Old Testament, in regard of the 
spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were for substance 
the same with those of the New. 


CHAP SA wloc 


Of Baptism. 


Eyre is a Sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by 

Jesus Christ * to be unto the party baptized * a signe and seal 
of the Covenant of Grace, of his ingraffing into Christ, of regenera- 
tion, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through 
Jesus Christ to walk in newness of life; which Ordinance ’® is by 
Christs own appointment to be continued in his Church until the 
end of the world. 

II. The outward Element to be used in this Ordinance,’ is 
[48] Water, wherewith the party is to be baptized in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, by a Minister of 
the Gospel lawfully called.’ 

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary, 
but Baptism is rightly administred by pouring or sprinkling water 
upon the person. 

IV. Not onely those that do actually profess faith in, and 
obedience unto Christ, but also the Infants of one or both believing 
parents are to be baptized, and those onely.* 

V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this Ordi- 
nance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto 
it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it; or 
that all that are baptized, are undoubtedly regenerated. 

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of 
time wherein it is administred, yet notwithstanding, by the right 
use of this Ordinance, the grace promised is not onely offered, but 
really exhibited and conferred by the holy Ghost to such (whether 
of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the 
counsel of Gods own Will in his appointed time. 

VII. Baptism® is but once to be administred to any person. 


1 West. reads, ordained. 2 West. chapter XXVIII. 

3 West. adds, zot only for the solemn adntission of the party baptized into the visible 
Church, but also to be, etc. 

4 West. reads, uzto him a sign. 5 [bid., sacrament. 6 Ibid. 

7 West. adds, thereunto; and 1680 and Saybrook have the addition. 

8 A simple addition, nothing omitted from West. 

9 West. reads, The sacrament of baptisne. 





THE* CONFESSION OF FAITH 399 


[49] CHAP. XXX.! 
Of the Lords Supper. 


Ur Lord Jesus in the night wherein he was betrayed, insti- 
tuted the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, called the Lords 
Supper, to be observed in his Churches? unto * the end of the world, 
for the perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth* of the Sacri- 
fice of himself in his death, the sealing of® all benefits thereof unto 
true believers, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their 
further ingagement in and to all duties which they owe unto him, 
and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and 
with each other.° 

II. In this Sacrament Christ is not offered up to his Father, 
nor any real Sacrifice made at all for remission of sin’ of the quick 
or dead, but onely a memorial* of that one offering up of himself 
by himself upon the Cross once for all, and a spiritual Oblation of 
all possible praise unto God for the same; so that the Popish Sac- 
rifice of the Mass (as they call it) is most abominable,’ injurious to 
Christs own” onely Sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins 
of the Elect. 

III. The Lord Jesus hath in this Ordinance appointed his 
Ministers’’ to pray and bless the Elements of Bread and Wine, and 
thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use, and to 
take and break the Bread, to take the Cup, and (they communicating 
also themselves) to give [50] both to the Communicants, but to 
none who are not then present in the Congregation, 

IV. Private Masses, or receiving the Sacrament by a Priest, 
or any other alone, as likewise the denial of the Cup to the people, 
worshiping the Elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them 
about for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended 
religious use, are contrary to the nature of this Sacrament, and to 
the Institution of Christ. . 

V. The outward Elements in this Sacrament duely set apart 
to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him Crucified, 
as that truely, yet Sacramentally onely, they are sometimes called 
by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the Body and 





1 West. chapter X XIX. 2 West. reads, church. 3 1680 reads, Zo. 

4 A simple addition, nothing omitted from West. 5 Tbid. 

® West. adds, as members of his mystical body. 

7 West. szus, 8 West. reads, commemoration. ® Ibid., abominably. 19 West. reads, one. 

11 West. adds, ‘‘ appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people, to 
pray’’ etc. This phrase, rejected in the Savoy, is-restored in the confessions of 1680 and Saybrook, 
the latter however reading (possibly erroneously) zzstructzon instead of zs t7tution. 


‘ 


400 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


Blood of Christ; albeit in substance and nature they still remain 
truly and onely Bread and Wine as they were before. 

VI. That Doctrine which maintains a change of the sub- 
stance of Bread and Wine into the substance of Christs Body and 
Blood (commonly called Transubstantiation) by consecration of a 
Priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, 
but even to common sense and reason, overthroweth the nature of 
the Sacrament, and hath been, and is the cause of manifold Super- 
stitions, yea of gross Idolatries. 

VII. Worthy Receivers outwardly partaking of the visible 
[51] Elements in this Sacrament, do then also inwardly by Faith, 
really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, 
receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his 
death; the Body and Blood of Christ being then not corporally or 
carnally in, with, or under the Bread or’ Wine; yet as really, but 
spiritually present to the Faith of Believers in that Ordinance, as 
the Elements themselves are to their outward senses. 

VIII. All’ ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to 
enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lords 
Table, and cannot without great sin against him, whilest they re- 
main such, partake of these holy Mysteries, or be admitted there- 
unto; yea whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the 
Body and Blood of the Lord, eating and drinking Judgement ’* to 
themselves. 


CHAE. XX X18 


Of the state of Man* after Death, and of the Resurrection 
of the Dead. 


He Bodies of men after death return to dust, and see corrup- 
tion, but their souls (which neither die nor sleep) having an 
immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them, 
the souls of the righteous being then made perfect in holiness, are 
received into the highest Heavens, where they behold the face of 





1 West. reads, azd. ; 

2 Though this section is in substantial agreement with the corresponding section in the West., 
it has been rewritten. The West. reads thus: 

“VIII. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament, 
yet they receive not the thing signified thereby ; but by their unworthy coming thereunto are guilty 
of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore all ignorant and ungodly 
persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with him, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table, 
and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mys- 
teries, or be admitted thereunto.”’ 

3 West. uses the word damnation. 

4 West. reads, 7ze2, but the American revisers have adopted max. 

5 This is chapter XXXII. in the West. Between the previous chapter and this occurs one of 
the most important omissions in the Savoy. Following the example set by Parliament, the Savoy, 


THE CONFESSION OF FAITH 401 


God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their 
bodies: And [52] the souls of the wicked are cast into Hell, where 
they remain in torment’ and utter darkness, reserved to the 
Judgement of the great day: Besides these two places for’ souls 
separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none, 

II. At the last day such as are found alive shall not die, but 
be changed, and all the dead shall be raised up with the self-same 





and its followers at Boston in 1680 and at Saybrook in 1708, reject two whole chapters of the West- 
minster, XXX. and XXXI, The omitted chapters are as follows: 


““CHAPTER XXX, 
Of Church Censures. 

The Lord Jesus, as king and head of his Church, hath therein appointed a government in 
the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate. 

II. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, by virtue whereof 
they have power respectively to retain and remit sins, to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, 
both by the Word and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel, 
and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require. 

III. Church censures are necessary for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren ; 
for deterring of others from the like offences; for purging out of that leaven which might infect 
the whole lump; for vindicating the honour of Christ, and the holy profession of the gospel; and 
for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer 
his covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders. 

IV. For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the Church are to proceed by ad- 
monition, suspension from the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper for a season, and by excommunica, 
tion from the Church, according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person. 


CHAPTER XXXI. 
Of Synods and Councils. 

For the better government and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such 
assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils. 

II, As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers and other fit persons to consult 
and advise with about matters of religion; so, if magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the 
ministers of Christ, of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons, upon 
delegation from their churches, may meet together in such assemblies. 

III. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, 
and cases of conscience ; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public wor- 
ship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, 
and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the 
Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with 
the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed 
thereunto in his Word. 

IV. All synods or councils since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, 
and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be 
used as a help in both, 

V. Synods,and councils are to handle or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical : 
and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of 
humbie petition in cases extraordinary ; or by way of advice for satisfaction of conscience, if they 
be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.”’ 

It is interesting to note that American Presbyterians have felt the need of revising chapter 
XXXI. of the Westminster Confession just given, and therefore, in 1788, added the following clauses 
to section I.: ‘‘ And it belongeth to the overseers and other rulers of the particular churches, by 
virtue of their office, and the power which Christ hath given them for edification, and not for de- 
struction, to appoint such assemblies ; and to convene together in them, as often as they shall judge 
it expedient for the good of the Church.”’’ 

At the same time they wholly rejected section II. of the same chapter. 

1 West. reads, torments. 2 1680 reads of 


402 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


bodies, and none other, although with different qualities, which 
shall be united again to their souls for ever. 

III. The bodies of the unjust shall by the Power of Christ 
be raised to dishonor; the bodies of the just by his Spirit unto 
honor, and be made conformable to his own glorious Body. 


CHAPS XXXL? 
Of the last Judgement. 


Od hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the World in 
righteousness by Jesus Christ, to whom all Power and 
Judgement is given of the Father; in which day not onely the 
Apostate Angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that 
have lived upon earth, shall appear before the Tribunal of Christ, 
to give an account of their thoughts, words and deeds, and to re- 
ceive according to what they have done in the body, whether good 
or evil. 

[53] II. The end of Gods appointing this day, is for the 
manifestation of the Glory of his Mercy in the eternal salvation of 
the Elect, and of his Justice in the damnation of the Reprobate, 
who are wicked and disobedient: for then shall the righteous go 
into everlasting Life, and receive that fulness of joy and glory, 
with everlasting reward’ in the presence of the Lord; but the 
wicked who know not God, and obey not the Gospel of Jesus 
Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with 
everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from 
the glory of his Power. 

III. As Christ would have us to be certainly perswaded that 
there shall be a* Judgement, both to deter all men from sin, and 
for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity; so will 
he have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all 
carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at 
what hour the Lord will come, and may be ever iaaalens to say, 
Come Lord Jesus, come quickly. Amen. 


[Page 54 (unnumbered) is blank in the two earliest editions. In the third edition it contains 
an advertisement. ] 





1 West. chapter XX XIII, and last. 
2 West. reads, fullness of joy and refreshing which shall come from the presence, ete. 
3 West. adds, day of. 


THE PLATFORM OF. POLITY 403 


[55] Of the 
INS EEUU LION 


of 
CELULR CEES, 
And the 
ORDER 
Appointed in them by 


JESUS CHRIST. 


Y the appointment of the Father all Power for the Calling, 

Institution, Order, or Government of the Church, is invested 

in a Supreme and Soveraign maner in the Lord Jesus Christ, as 
King and Head thereof. 

II. In the execution of this Power wherewith he is so en- 
trusted, the Lord Jesus calleth out of the World unto Communion 
with himself, those that are given unto him by his Father, that 
they may walk before him in all the ways of Obedience, which he 
prescribeth to them in his Word. 

[56] Ill. Those thus called (through the Ministery of the 
Word by his Spirit) he commandeth to walk together in particular 
Societies or Churches, for their mutual edification, and the due 
performance of that publique Worship, which he requireth of them 
in this world. 

IV. To each of these Churches thus gathered, according 
unto his minde declared in his Word, he hath given all that Power 
and Authority, which is any way needfull for their carrying on 
that Order in Worship and Discipline, which he hath instituted for 
them to observe with Commands and Rules, for the due and right 
exerting and executing of that Power. 

V. These particular Churches thus appointed by the Author- 
ity of Christ, and intrusted with power from him for the ends be- 
fore expressed, are each of them as unto those ends, the seat of 


1 This Platform of Church Polity, the most original of the work at the Savoy, was never 
adopted by American Congregationalists, their principles being better set forth in the Cambridge 
Platform, 


404 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


that Power which he is pleased to communicate to his Saints or 
Snbjects’ in this world, so that as such they receive it immediately 
from himself. ; 

VI. Besides these particular Churches, there is not instituted 
by Christ any Church more extensive or Catholique entrusted with 
power for the administration of his Ordinances, or the execution 
of any authority in his name. 

[57] VII. A particular Church gathered and compleated ac- 
cording to the minde of Christ, consists of Officers and Members: 
The Lord Christ having given to his called ones (united according 
to his appointment in Church-order) Liberty and Power to choose 
Persons fitted by the holy Ghost for that purpose, to be over them, 
and to minister to them in the Lord. 

VIII. The Members of these Churches are Saints by Calling, 
visibly manifesting and evidencing (in and by their profession and 
walking) their obedience unto that Call of Christ, who being fur- 
ther known to each other by their confession of the Faith wrought in 
them by the power of God, declared by themselves or otherwise 
manifested, do willingly consent to walk together according to the 
appointment of Christ, giving up themselves to the Lord, and to 
one another by the will of God in professed subjection to the 
Ordinances of the Gospel. 

IX. The Officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set 
apart by the Church so called, and gathered for the peculiar ad- 
ministration of Ordinances, and execution of Power or Duty which 
he intrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end 
of the world, are Pastors, Teachers, Elders, and Deacons. ; 

X. Churches thus gathered and assembling for the Worship 
of God, are thereby visible and publique, and their As-[58]semblies 
(in what place soever they are, according as they have liberty or 
opportunity) are therefore Church or Publique Assemblies. 

XI, The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any per- 
son, fitted and gifted by the holy Ghost, unto the Office of Pastor, 
Teacher or Elder in a Church, is, that he be chosen thereunto by 
the common suffrage of the Church it self, and solemnly set apart 
by Fasting and Prayer, with Imposition of Hands of the Eldership 
of that Church, if there be any before constituted therein: And of 
a Deacon, that he be chosen by the like suffrage, and set a by 
Prayer, and the like Imposition of Hands, 

XII. The Essence of this Call of a Pastor, Teacher or Elder 
unto Office, consists in the Election of the Church, together with 


2 Misprint. 


THE PLATKFORM OF “POLITY 405 


his acceptation of it, and separation dy Fasting and Prayer: And 
those who are so chosen, though not set apart by Imposition of 
Hands, are rightly constituted Ministers of Jesus Christ, in whose 
Name and Authority they exercise the Ministery to them so com- 
mitted. The Calling of Deacons consisteth in the hke Election 
and acceptation, with separation dy Prayer. 

XIII. Although it be incumbent on the Pastors and Teachers 
of the Churches to be instant in Preaching the Word, by way cf 
Office; yet the work of Preaching the Word is not so peculiarly 
confined to them, but that others also gifted and fitted by the holy 
Ghost for it, and approved (being by [63]’ lawful ways and means 
in the Providence of God called thereunto) may publiquely, ordi- 
narily and constantly perform it; so that they give themselves up 
thereunto, 

XIV. However, they who are ingaged in the work of Pub- 
lique Preaching, and enjoy the Publique Maintenance upon that 
account, are not thereby obliged to dispense the Seals to any other 
then such as (being Saints by Calling, and gathered according to 
the Order of the Gospel) they stand related to, as Pastors or 
Teachers; yet ought they not to neglect others living within their 
Parochial Bounds, but besides their constant publique Preaching 
to them, they ought to enquire after their profiting by the Word, 
instructing them in, and pressing upon them (whether young or 
old) the great Doctrines of the Gospel, even personally and par- 
ticularly, so far as their strength and time will admit. 

XV. Ordination alone without the Election or precedent 
consent of the Church, by those who formerly have been Ordained 
by vertue of that Power they have received by their Ordination, 
doth not constitute any person a Church-Officer, or communicate 
Office-power unto him. 

XVI. A Church furnished with Officers (according to the 
minde of Christ) hath full power to administer all his Ordinances; 
and where there is want of any one or more Officers required, that 
Officer, or those which are in the Church, may administer all the 
Ordinances proper to their particular Duty and Offices; but where 
there are no teach-[6o]ing Officers, none may administer the Seals, 
nor can the Church authorize any so to do. 

XVII. In the carrying on of Church-administrations, no per- 
son’ ought to be added to the Church, but by the consent of the 
Church it self; that so love (without dissimulation) may be pre- 
served between all the Members thereof. 


1 Misprint for [59]. 


406 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


XVIII. Whereas the Lord Jesus Christ hath appointed and 
instituted as a means of Edification, that those who walk not ac- 
cording to the Rules and Laws appointed by him (in respect of 
Faith and Life, so that just offence doth .arise to the Church 
thereby) be censured in his Name and Authority: Every Church 
hath Power in it self to exercise and execute all those Censures 
appointed by him in the way and Order prescribed in the Gospel. 

XIX. The Censures so appointed by Christ, are Admonition 
and Excommunication: and whereas some offences are or may be 
known onely to some, it is appointed by Christ, that those to whom 
they are so known, do first admonish the offender in private: in 
publique offences where any sin, before all; or in case of non- 
amendment upon private admonition, the offence being related to 
the Church, and the offender not manifesting his repentance, he is 
to be duely admonished in the Name of Christ by the whole Church, 
by the Ministery of the Elders of the Church; and if this Censure 
prevail not for his repentance, then he is to be cast out by Excom- 
munication with the consent of the Church. 

[61] XX. As all Believers are bound to joyn themselves to 
particular Churches, when and where they have opportunity so to 
do, so none are to be admitted unto the Priviledges of the 
Churches, who do not submit themselves to the Rule of Christ in 
the Censures for the Government of them. 

XXI. This being the way prescribed by Christ in case of 
offence, no Church-members upon any offences taken by them, 
having performed their duty required of them in this matter, 
ought to disturb any Church-order, or absent themselves from the 
publique Assemblies, or the Administration of any Ordinances 
upon that pretence, but to wait upon Christ in the further pro- 
ceeding of the Church. 

XXII. The Power of Censures being seated by Christ in a 
particular Church, is to be exercised onely towards particular 
Members of each Church respectively as such; and there is no 
power given by him unto any Synods or Ecclesiastical Assemblies 
to Excommunicate, or by their publique Edicts to threaten Ex- 
communication, or other Church-censures against Churches, Mag- 
istrates, or their people upon any account, no man being obnoxious 
to that Censure, but upon his personal miscarriage, as a Member 
of a particular Church. 

XXIII. Although the Church is a Society of men, assembling 
[62] for the celebration of the Ordinances according to the ap- 
pointment of Christ, yet every Society assembling for that end or 


dey doe Rhy OF SROLEDY 407 


purpose, upon the account of cohabitation within any civil Pre- 
cincts and Bounds, is not thereby constituted a Church, seeing 
there may be wanting among them, what is essentially required 
thereunto; and therefore a Believer living with others in such a 
Precinct, may joyn himself with any Church for his edification. 

XXIV. For the avoiding of Differences that may otherwise 
arise, for the greater Solemnity in the Celebration of the Ordi- 
mances of Christ, and the opening a way for the larger usefulness 
of the Gifts and Graces of the holy Ghost; Saints living in one 
City or Town, or within such distances as that they may con- 
veniently assemble for divine Worship, ought rather to joyn in one 
Church for their mutual strengthning and edification, then to set 
up many distinct Societies. 

XXV. As all Churches and all the Members of them are 
bound to pray continually for the good or prosperity of all the 
Churches of Christ in all places, and upon all occasions to further 
it; (Every one within the bounds of their Places and Callings, in 
the exercise of their Gifts and Graces) So the Churches them- 
selves (when planted by the providence of God, so as they may 
have oppertunity and advantage for it) ought to hold communion 
amongst themselves for their peace, increase of love, and mutual 
edification. 

[63] XXVI. In Cases of Difficulties or Differences, either in 
point of Doctrine or in Administrations, wherein either the 
‘Churches in general are concerned, or any one Church in their 
Peace, Union, and Edification, or any Member or Members of any 
Church are injured in, or by any proceeding in Censures, not 
agreeable to Truth and Order: it is according to the minde of 
Christ, that many Churches holding communion together, do by 
their Messengers meet in a Synod or Councel, to consider and give 
their advice in, or about that matter in difference, to be reported 
to all the Churches concerned; Howbeit these Synods so assem- 
bled are not entrusted with any Church-Power, properly so called, 
or with any Jurisdiction over the Churches themselves, to exercise 
any Censures, either over any Churches or Persons, or to impose 
their determinations on the Churches or Officers. 

XXVII. Besides these occasional Synods or Councels, there 
are not instituted by Christ any stated Synods in a fixed Combina- 
tion of Churches, or their Officers in lesser or greater Assemblies; 
nor are there any Synods appointed by Christ in a way of Subordi- 
nation to one another. 

XXVIII. Persons that are joyned in Church-fellowship, ought 
not lightly or without just cause to withdraw themselves from the 


408 THE SAVOY DECLARATION 


communion of the Church whereunto they are so joyned: Never- 
theless, where any person cannot continue in any Church without 
his sin, either for want of the Administration of any Ordinances 
instituted by Christ, or by his be-[64]ing deprived of his due Privi- 
ledges, or compelled to any thing in practice not warranted by the 
Word, or in case of Persecution, or upon the account of conven- 
iency of habitation; he consulting with the Church, or the Officer 
or Officers thereof, may peaceably depart from the communion of 
the Church, wherewith he hath so walked, to joyn himself with 
some other Church, where he may enjoy the Ordinances in the 
purity of the same, for his edification and consolation. 

XXIX. Such reforming Churches as consist of Persons sound 
in the Faith and of Conversation becoming the Gospel, ought not 
to refuse the communion of each other, so far as may consist with 
their own Principles respectively, though they walk not in all 
things according to the same Rules of Church-Order. 

XXX. Churches gathered and walking according to the 
minde of Christ, judging other Churches (though less pure) to be 
true Churches, may receive unto occasional communion with them, 
such Members of those Churches as are credibly testified to be 
godly, and to live without offence. . 


FINIS. 


XIII 


fies REFORMING SYNOD” OF 1679 AND" 1680, 
ON Oe eG oo LONG OH EP ALDH 


EDITIONS AND REPRINTS 
A. THE RESULT OF 1679 

I. [Increase Mather] Zhe Wecessity of Reformation With the Expedients 
thereunto, asserted. Boston; Printed by John Foster In the Year 1679. 4° pp. 
Tits. 

II. Cotton Mather, JZagnalia, London, 1702, ed. Hartford, 1853-5, II: 320- 
331 (without the Preface). 

Ill. Zhe Results of Three Synods, etc. Boston, 1725, pp. 94-118. 


B. THE CONFESSION OF I680 


I. A Confession of Faith Owned and consented unto by the Elders and Mes- 
sengers of the Churches Assembled at Boston in New-England, May 12. 1680. 
Being the second Session of that Synod. etc. Boston; Printed by John Foster. 
1680. 8° 54x 3} inches, pp. vi, 65, with Camédridge Platform. 

II. At Boston in 1699 in English and Indian, with Cambridge Platform.? 

III. In the AZagnata, London, 1702, V: 5-19, ed. Hartford, 1853-5, II:. 
182-207. 

TVs VAt Boston in 1725." 

V. At Boston in 1750.4 

VI. At Boston in 1757, with Cambridge Platform.® 

VII. In Zhe Original Constitution, Order and Faith of the New England’ 
Churches, etc. Boston, 1812, with the Cambridge Platform (ed. 1808), and the 
Propositions of 1662. 

VIII. In Zhe Cambridge and Saybrook Platforms of Church Discipline, with» 
the Confession of Faith . . . adopted in 1680, and the Heads of Agreement 

in r6go. Boston: T. R. Marvin, 1829, pp. 69-113. 
IX. In T.C. Upham, Ratio Discipline, Portland, 1829, pp. 253-302. 
X. In the AZanual of the Old South Church, Boston, Mass., ed. Boston, 1841,, 


pp. 13-66.° 


4 Full title in reprint at the close of this chapter. 
2 Catalogue of Collection of Mr. Brayton Ives, New York, 1891, No. 145;, Prince Library, 


No, 24.23. 
3 Brinley Sale Cat., No. 7492. 4 Prince, No. 14.60. 5 Brinley, No. 7493.. 
6 Given as the ‘‘ Confession of Faith . . . of the Old South Church,”’ but Mr. H. A. Hill,., 


in his admirable History of that Church, has pointed out (I: 235, and II: 555) that it probably was . 
never adopted by formal vote of the church. The consent of the minister to this confession at his 
settlement over the Old South was taken from the installation of Rev. Alexander Cumming in 1761 
to that of Dr. J. M. Manning in 1857. At the settlement of Rev. G. A. Gordon, the present pastor, . 
in 1884, it was omitted. 


27 ( 409 ) 


410 THE REFORMING SYNOD, 1679, 1680 


XI. In Report! on Congregationalism, including a Manual of Church Disct- 
pline, together with the Cambridge Platform . . . and the Confession of Faith, 
adopted in 1680. Boston, 1846, pp. 87-128. 

XII. In the AZanual of the Old South Church, Boston, Mass., ed. Boston, 
1855. 

XIII. In Zhe Cambridge Platform . . . and the Confession . . . 1680, 
to which ts prefixcd a Platform of Ecclesiastical Government, by Nath. Emmons. 
Boston, 1855. 


SOURCES 


Records of . . . Massachusetts Bay, Boston, 1853-4, V: 215, 216, 244, 
257. 

Peter Thatcher, A7.S. Diary (some extracts are printed by Palfrey and Hill in 
the passages cited under Literature below). 


LITERATURE 


Hubbard, General History of New England,’ ed. Boston, 1848, pp. 621-624. 
Cotton Mather, Wagualia, ed. Hartford, 1853-5, Il: 179-181, 316-320, 331-338- 
Neal, History of New England,’ London, 1720, II: 409-411. Cotton Mather, 
Parentator. Memoirs of Remarkables in the Life and the Death of the Ever- 
Memorable Dr. Increase Mather, Boston, 1724, pp. 81-87. Hutchinson, “/zstory 
of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, ed. London, 1765, I: 324. Emerson, //zs- 
torical Sketch of the First Church in Boston, Boston, 1812, pp. 127-129. Wisner, 
fTistory of the Old South Church tn Boston, Boston, 1830, pp.,15, 16. Palfrey, 
fTistory of New England, II1: 330-332. Lawrence, Our Declaration of Faith 
and the Confession, in Cong. Quarterly, VIIL: 173-190 passim (Apl., 1866). Dex- 
ter, Congregationalism, as seen in its Literature, pp. 476-485. Doyle, English in 
America; Puritan Colonies, London, 1887, II: 272. H. A. Hill, Wistory of the 
Old South Church, Boston, 1890, I: 231-235. 


S has been pointed out in enumerating the causes which led 
A to the Half-Way Covenant, the passing away of the found- 
ers of New England brought forward a generation which, 
though in the main moral, had not that intensity of religious ex- 
perience which characterized its predecessor. While it was true, as 
Cotton Mather affirmed in writing of this period, that*— 


‘“ New-England was not become so degenerate a Country, but that there was 
yet Preserved in it, far more of Serious Religion, as well as of Blameless AZorality, 
than was Proportionably to be seen in any Country upon the face of the Earth”; 


the declaration of Thomas Prince is also well founded, that®— 


‘a little after 1660, there began to appear a Decay: And this increased to 1670, 
when it grew very visible and threatening, and was generally complained of and be- 


1 By a committee of which Dr. Leonard Woods was chairman. 

2 Hubbard was probably a member of the Synod, but his report is remarkably barren, and is 
largely made up from the Prefaces of the Results. 

3 Chiefly from Mather. 4 Parentator, p. 82. 

5 Christian History, Boston, 1743, I: 94. 


A DECADE OF DISASTER 4II 


wailed bitterly by the Pious among them: And yet much more to 1680, when but 
few of the first Generation remained.” 

The number of additions to the full communion of the churches 
was small; while records of church discipline show that serious 
misconduct was by no means rare. Under such circumstances it 
is no wonder that the minds of faithful ministers were filled with 
concern. 

The sense of alarm regarding the state of New England en- 
gendered by the decline of visible piety, was greatly intensified by 
a series of disastrous events which seemed to the men of that age 
divine judgments. The first fifty years of New England history 
were of unusual prosperity. With the exception of the short, 
sharp struggle with the Pequots in 1637, no war disturbed the 
borders of the land. During the Puritan ascendency in England 
the home government had been friendly, and even the restoration 
of the Stuarts had brought no serious political disaster. In spite 
of the ‘ Navigation Acts,”’* the trade of New England flourished 
and brought considerable wealth and increasing luxury to its 
ports. But this course of prosperity was rudely interrupted at the 
close of the third quarter of the seventeenth century. The In- 
dians, who had been at peace with the white settlers for nearly 
forty years, and who had been well treated by the Puritans, broke 
out in warfare; and from June 20, 1675, to the death of Philip, 
August 12, 1676, threatened the existence of the colonies. This 
struggle, known from the chief Indian leader as Philip’s war,’ re- 
sulted in the elimination of the Indian problem from the category 
of questions vital to New England life; but at a terrible cost. Of 
the eighty or ninety towns to be found in Plymouth and Massa- 
chusetts colonies in 1675, ten or twelve were utterly destroyed,’ 
while forty more were partially burned. Nor was the loss of prop- 


erty the most serious result of the contest. Between five and six 


1 These acts, the first of which was passed under the Commonwealth, Oct. 9, 1651, and which 
were strengthened in 1660, in their extreme form forbade the importation of goods into the colonies 
except in English vessels, and the export of their chief products except to English ports. They 
were long more honored in the breach than the observance, 

2 This war, which forms the political background of the Reforming Synod, is well described 
by Palfrey, History of New England, I11: 132-230; and John Fiske, Beginnings of New Eng- 
land, pp. 199-241 

3 These figures are from Palfrey, III: 215. 


412 THE REFORMING SYNOD, 1679, 1680 


hundred young and middle-aged men—a tenth of all of military age 
in the colonies——lost their lives; and to these victims must be added 
the scores of women and children who perished by the tomahawk or 
died amid the torments of the stake. An experience so ghastly 
and so universal might well seem to the ministry of that day a 
special outpouring of the wrath of God. 

And, beyond the great disaster of the Indian war, the opening 
of the last quarter of the century was a period of losses unexam- 
pled in the history of the colonies. On November 27, 1676, the 
North Church in Boston and more than forty houses adjacent 
were burned.’ Three years later, August 7-8, 1679, a yet more 
destructive conflagration swept away nearly all the business por- 
tion of the town. Shipwreck also brought more than customary 
losses to the merchants of the colonies, while pestilences,*® espe- 
cially the dreaded small-pox, caused great mortality. And, as if 
to fill the cup of misfortune, the liberties of the colonies, especially 
of Massachusetts, were threatened* at this crisis of war and im- 
poverishment, by the hostility of the Stuart government, which was 
making its hand heavy, and was to bring about, a little later, the 
tyranny of Dudley and Andros, itself the culmination of a series of 
acts of oppression, of which not the least exasperating to the min- 
istry of New England were the efforts of English agents, begun 
with vigor in January, 1679, to introduce Episcopacy into the Puri- 
tan commonwealths.’ 

Ft was under these circumstances of disaster and, as was be- 
lieved, of judgment, that Increase Mather,® the most prominent 





1 See Increase Mather, Returning unto God . . . a Sermon, etc. Boston, 1680, Preface. 
2 Peter Thacher’s diary in Hill, Wzstaery af the Old South Church, 1: 230, 231; Hubbard 
says, General History, p. 649, ‘‘the burning of Boston . . . hath half ruined the whole Colony, 


as well as the town.”’ 


3 Increase Mather, Returning unto God, Preface. 

4 See Palfrey, III1: 273 et seggq. 

5 Palfrey, III: 324. 

6 Increase Mather is too familiar to need extended notice. Born June 21, 1639, youngest son 
of Richard Mather of Dorchester, he graduated at Harvard in 1656, and went the next year to 
England, where he was well received and given opportunities for preaching. Soon after the Resto- 
ration he returned to New England, and after preaching for the Second Church, Boston, from Sep- 
tember, 1661, he was ordained its minister, May 27, 1664. From that time to his death he wasa 
part of all that was done in New England. He became President of Harvard in June, 1685, and 
held the office till r7or ; he took prominent part in defense of the colonial liberties, and served as 
agent for Massachusetts in England from 1688 to 1692, obtaining the new Massachusetts charter 


THE FIRST STEPS TOWARD THE SYNOD 413 


minister of the second generation in New England, and pastor of 
the Second Church in Boston, aroused his brethren in the ministry 
to appeal to the Massachusetts General Court for the calling of a 
Synod.’ The conception of such an assembly was one which might 
naturally have arisen in his mind, but the immediate suggestion 
may have come to Mather from a letter of Rev. Thomas Jollie, of 
Pendlton-nigh-Clitherow, in Lancashire, Eng., in which that Puri- 
tan divine recommended, under date of January 18, 1678, the 
summons of a Synod as the best means for securing the spiritual 
improvement of New England.” Whatever the influence of Jollie 
may have been, Mather succeeded in obtaining the signatures of 
eighteen of the more prominent of his ministerial brethren to his 
petition to the Court. First of the signers in the order in which 
the names were appended to the paper, was the venerable John 
Eliot of Roxbury, then came the name of Increase Mather, and 
next that of Samuel Torrey of Weymouth, Moses Fiske of Brain- 
tree followed, and then Josiah Flynt of Dorchester. The other 
signers, in their order, were Thomas Clark of Chelmsford, James 
Sherman of Sudbury, Joseph Whiting of Lynn, Samuel Cheever of 
Marblehead, Samuel Phillips of Rowley, Solomon Stoddard of 
Northampton, Samuel Whiting, sen,, of Lynn, Thomas Cobbett 
of Ipswich, Edward Bulkeley of Concord, John Sherman of Water- 
town, John Higginson of Salem, John Hale of Beverly, Samuel 
Whiting, Jr., of Billerica, and John Wilson of Medfield. 

The document to which these autographs are appended is 





from William and Mary. His later life was specially fruitful in writings for the press. He died 
Aug. 23, 1723. Increase Mather was essentially a conservative. As such his influence was directed 
toward the maintenance of that supremacy of the religious element in civil affairs which marked 
the founders of New England. As such he opposed changes in the practices of the churches, his 
ideal being, apparently, the state in which they were about the time of the Synod of 1662. His con- 
servative attitude brought him much opposition, but no man in New England equaled him in in- 
fluence in his lifetime. Asa writer, his voluminousness is only exceeded, among the New England 
ministry, by his son, Cotton Mather. The sources of information regarding him are many, but they 
are best epitomized in Sibley, Graduates of Harvard, 1: 410-470, where a list of biographical 
authorities will be found, together with as complete a catalogue of his writings as it is probably 
possible to make. 


1‘**Upon a motion of Mr. Mather in Conjunction with others excited by him for it, the 
General Court called upon the Churches to send their Delegates for a Syzed.’’ Cotton Mather, 
Parentator, p.84. Doubtless this petition was prepared at the annual Ministerial Convention, of 
which some account may be found in chapter XV of this volume. 

2 The letter is dated 18th of 11th m: 167%, and reads: ‘* The advice I humbly offer for your 
awakning to duty in the reforming of your manifest evills and for preventing of threatning ruin 
is, that a Synod bee gathered to that purpose.’’ 4 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., VIII: 320. 


AI4 THE REFORMING SYNOD, 1679, 1680 


apparently in the handwriting of Increase Mather;’ and as its 
length is considerable and much of its matter is reproduced in 


. substance in the Result of the Synod of 1679, a brief extract will 


suffice to indicate its quality. The petition first recounts with 
gratitude the inquiries into the evils of the times made by the 
General Court in October, 1675, in the stress of the Indian war, 
and the revisal and publication of laws undertaken by the Court 
with a view to the betterment of the country; but the signers feel 


constrained to be — 


‘“humbly bold, in the fear of God, to declare unto the Honoured Court, as unto y® 
Representative of this people, as it followeth — 

1. That according to our best discerning, those Reforming Laws (so called, wee 
fear, by many with slighting) have been, & are still likely to be ineffectual unto any 
part of the general work of Reformation proposed. . . . 2. That according to 
our best discerning, those Sins which are by Law entituled provoking Evils, and 
which give that wofull Title to those Reforming Laws, are in most, (especially most 
populous) places as general, as powerfull, as Incorrigible & Incurable, &, wee fear, 
more Judicial then they were before.? . . +. 3. That according to our best 
descerning Gods anger is not yett turned away, but his hand is stretched out still. 

Thus wee declare in the fear of God, not so much to inform (much less to 
reflect upon) yourselves, as to discharge our publick Trust, & to deliver our own 
Soules. And withal, that wee may from hence take occasion humbly to propose 
unto this Hon.ed Court. 

j. Whether Civil Authority as it is vested in all persons of publick place & 
Trust, in every order more vigorously exerted, by a zealous prosecution of Laws 
against sin, to effect, would not give Life unto those Laws, & motion unto the work 
of Reformation. . . . 2. Forasmuch as wee cannot but acknowledge ourselves 
to be very defective in o* place and work, Whether Churches & Elders ought not to 
bee moved, encouraged and assisted unto that which God calls for, & expects from 


them in the work of Reformation. . . . Wee find in Scripture that the Religious 
Reforming Magistrate did ever stirr up, and strengthen the churches & ministry unto 
the work of God in Apostatizing Times. . . . 3. Whether a Convention of the 


Churches by their Elders & messengers bee not extraordinarily necessary at this 
Time, as a most general means unto the attainment of these great ends proposed; & 
whether therefore God doth not now call the Churches thereunto. . . . Many 
things appear unto us, necessary in such an Assembly, which cannot bee orderly & 
effectually wrought otherwise — as 

i. That there bee a more full enquiry made into the Causes & State of Gods 
Controversy with us. . . . 2. That these Churches, & this Ministry (which, re- 
specting the persons of whom they are now Constituted are mostly other Churches, 
& another ministry) having never yett in this present Age, made any publick Confes- 





1 The petition has never been published. It may be found in the Massachusetts Archives, 


Vole 167, 
2 Here follows a brief enumeration of most of those evils described in the Result of the Synod 


of 1679. 


PETLOION “FO THE LEGISLATURE 415 


sion or profession of the faith & order of the Gospel, It may now seem very necessary 
for us so to do, at least by owning & asserting y® same faith and order of the Gospel 
in which these Churches were at first established, and of which o" Fathers witnessed 
a good Confession in such an Assembly at Cambridge, in y* year 1648, and afterward 
left upon Record unto us in y® platform of Discipline, & other writings. And the 
rather wee Judge it necessary at this time, Because wee fear that these Churches are, 
& will be much endangered both by Ignorance & error, as also that both Churches & 
Elders may have a more right & full understanding one of another, that wee may bee 
the better prepared to hold fast our profession, & to stand fast together in an hour 
of Temptation, as also that wee may clear our selves of the suspicion & scandal of 
defection. 3. That the Churches may have opportunity for to labour (at least) to 
find out, and fix upon the right means and method of practice as to things which 
have been already clearly & firmly stated from the word of God, that so the Churches 
may Concurr, and assist one another therein, in a way of publick order, peace, union, 
& communion ; more especially in that wherein wee are by practice to discharge our- 
selves faithfully in all duty unto the Children of the Covenant, which is a principal 
part of the neglect and defect of which wee are the more sadly sensible. 

Unto all wee add, the consideration of the presence of Christ with, & y® blessing and 
success which hee hath given unto y® former Labours & Endeavours of the Churches 
in this way of his appointment. 

Much Honored . . . wee have made this plain Address unto you, because 
wee have observed that all former Essayes unto Reformation have failed, & our hope 
thereof been frustrated; If therefore, there bee yett any hope in Israel concerning 
this matter, wee beleeve it will not bee attained untill Magistracy, Ministry, Churches 
& people rise up together, in their proper places & order, unto the work.” 


This petition was presented to the Massachusetts General 
Court at the session of May 28, 1679, and received immediate and 
favorable response. Possibly the undercurrent of criticism which 
flowed beneath the surface of the stream of the New England the- 
ocracy may have been more obvious to the legislators than the 
guarded words of the petitioners implied. Something more than a 
mere renewal of assent to the Cambridge Platform, a revisal of 
some of its sections, would have, apparently, found favor with the 
Legislature. But the main request of the petitioners was granted, 
and the Synod ordered in the following vote:* 

‘*In ans" to a motion made by some of the reuerend elders, that there might be 
a convening of the elders & messengers of the churches in forme of a synod, for the 
reuisall of the platforme of discipljne agreed vpon by the churches, 1647, and what 
else may appeare necessary for the preventing schishmes, heresies, prophaness, & the 
establishment of the churches in one faith & order of the gospell, this Court doe 


approoue of the sajd motion, & order their assembling for the ends aforesajd on the 
second Wednesday in September? next, at Boston; and the secretary is required 


_ikecords . . . Mass. Bay, V: 215, 216. 2 Sept. ro. 


416 THE REFORMING SYNOD, 1679, 1680 


seasonably to give notice hereof to the seuerall churches. It is further ordered, that 
the charges of this meeting shall be borne by the churches respectively.’ 

Queesti 1.2. What are the euills that haue provoked the Lord to bring his judg- 
ments on New England? 

2 Quest. What is to be donn that so those evills may be reformed.” 


In due course of time the colonial secretary, Edward Rawson, 
sent a certified copy of this vote to the ministers of the various 
churches under the Massachusetts jurisdiction, accompanied by a 
note curiously illustrative of the dependence of the churches on 
state authority. There was no longer, as in 1646,*° a suggestion of 
unwillingness on the part of any of the legislators to command the 
churches. ‘The note to the minister of the Old South Church, 
Boston, is as follows: * 


‘*« These fore the Rever’d Mr. Saml Willard, Teacher to the 3d Church in Boston 
To be communicated to the Church. 

Rev’nd. Sir. These are only to inform yourself and church of the underwritten 
Generall Court’s Answer and order, not doubting of your and their obedience and 
complyance therewith at the time, remayning 

Your friend and servant 
Boston 11th July 1679 Edw. Rawson Secty ” 


The order accompanying this note seems on the whole to have 
met with the favor of the churches, though it is interesting to 
observe that the First Church, Boston, which had been so reluctant 
to take part in the Cambridge Synod in 1646,° now gave but a 
grudging and guarded obedience to the call of the Court. Possibly 
the hesitation of this venerable body in this instance was due toa 
fear that the Synod would propose some unpalatable solution of its 
ten-years dispute with the seceding Old South, rather than to a zeal 
for the more abstract principles of churchly independence of civil 
control.° The majority of the churches felt no scruples, and a 


1 This was done. Peter Thacher, one of the messengers of the Old South, Boston, recorded 
in his diary: ‘'6, Octo, 79, The deacons of our Church came and brought mee five pound for 
preaching and being a Messenger from the Church to the Synode,”’ H. A. Hill, Wzst. Old South, 
I: 234. The Dorchester church chose two messengers ‘‘ & ye deacons weer desiered to take Care 
for their entertainment at Boston on y® Church acct.” Rec. Hirst Ch., Dorchester, p. 83. 

2 These questions, though thus recorded, seem no part of the vote of the Court. They are 
appended to the letter sent by Sec. Rawson to the Old South, as ‘‘ Questions given in.’’ Probably 
they were handed in to the legislature by the petitioners after the granting of the petition. 

3 See ante, p. 167. 4H. A, Hill, Hist. Old South, 1: 232. 5 See ante, pp. 171-174. 

6 This suggestion is made by Mr, Hill, W7zst. Old South, 1: 233. The First Church voted, 
Aug. 5, 1679, to be represented in the Synod, but added: ‘‘ Tho wee doe not see light for the calling 
of a Synod att this time, yett there being one called: that what good theare is or may bee motioned 
may bee encouraged and evill prevented by our Testimony, wee are willing to send our Messengers 


THE SYNOD’S FIRST SESSION AZ 


general fast was held throughout the colony to supplicate the divine 
blessing on the coming Assembly.* 

The events of the first session of this Synod have been pre- 
served in the graphic and contemporary record of Rev. Peter 
Thacher,’ soon to be settled at Milton, Mass., but who, as a son of 
the lately deceased pastor of the Old South Church in Boston and 
a member of that body, represented that church as a delegate in 
the Synod.? His journal records: * 


“10: Sept: 79° y’ day y* Synod began = Cobbet & = Eliot® were 
Chouse Moderatours & w" y® had taken y* names of y* severall 
Chhs, w* sent & y® names of y* y*® y” found several Churches had 
only sent Elders & not brethren with y™ where upon y® Question 
was whether Elders of Chhs Ex Officio were not members & it was 
asserted y' y® matter of a Synod were Eld™ & brethren’ where upon 
it was agreed on y* Letters in y* Synods name Should be Sent to y® 
Churches y‘ had not done it* to request y' y’ would doe it. In y* 
afternoon y*® Plateforme of Church Discipline® was read & = Shear- 
man & {Oakes "° being Chouse Moderators y® Synod was adjurned 
till Eight a Clock y® next morning. 

Ii‘ Sept’ 79° y° Synod determined noe Vote should passe till 
y® had answer from y® Churches; where upon y° first question about 
y° provoking Evills was discoussd It was Lecture at first Chh 
Boston = Russell preached it.’* after Lecture y* govern’ came into 
yo oynod. 

12° Sept’ 79° y° Second question was discussd what was y® 
remidyes to remove gods Judgem* & a Committee Chouse to Con- 
sider of y™ & what was said concerning y™in y® Synod & to bring 
y° result unto y® Synod. alsoe a fast to be y® next twesday was 


to it: Tho whatever is theire determined, wee looke upon and judge to bee no further binding to us 
than the light of Gods word is thereby cleared to our Consciences.’’ Jézd. 

1C, Mather, Wagnalia, Il: 318; Parentator, p. 84. 

2 His biography is given by Sibley, Grad. of Harvard, I1: 370-379. 

il Old Sour Ch., ls 234. 

4 I owe this valuable record, now for the first time published in full, to the great kindness of 
Hon. Peter Thacher of Boston. Portions have been printed by Palfrey, Hzst. V. Z., II]: 330, 331; 
and Hill, Old South Ch., 1: 234. 

5 Rev. Messrs. Thomas Cobbett of Ipswich, now 71 years of age, and ‘“‘ Apostle’”’ John Eliot of 
Roxbury, now 75. From the choice of other moderators speedily thereafter it would appear that this 
election was a tribute to age and distinction ; the real burden of presiding over the discussion falling 
on younger shoulders. 

6 Perhaps we should interpret thus: zames of those that [represented the Churches,] they 
Sound, etc. 

7 For further particulars regarding this important assertion of Congregational principles see 
Preface to the Result, pp. 424, 425 of this volume; JZagnadia, ed. 1853-5, I1: 318; Increase Mather, 
Order of the Gospel, p. 83. 

8 J. e., Churches that had not elected delegates. 9 The Cambridge Platform. 

10 Rey. Messrs. John Sherman of Watertown, aged 66; and Urian Oakes of Cambridge, at 
this time acting president of Harvard College, aged 47. 

11 Rey. John Russell, once a minister at Wethersfield, Conn.; but since the founding of Had- 
ley, Mass., in 1659, pastor of the church there. 

12 Simon Bradstreet. 


418 THE REFORMING SYNOD, 1679, 1680 


appointed &  Cobbet & 7 Mather’ where’® to preach & whome y* 
moderatours should call forth were to pray. = Oakes, = Russell, £ 
Mather, + Torry,*  Moody,* Capt. Richards Cap‘. fisher & Deacon 
Tilson where Chouse for y* Committee. 

Y¥* Synod was adjourned till Twesday Eight a Clock was to be 
a fast. 

16° Sept: 79° Y* was a fast®° in y° Synod £ Higginson® began 
& prayed, y? = Cobbet preached Isa’ 63° 7° = Buckley’ prayed. in 
y° after=noon Old Z Eliot prayed = Mather preached gg: ps’ 6° y" 
< Cobbet went to prayer who was Exceedingly in larged y* was 
much of god appeared in him. I desire to blesse god for y* day 
my heart was much drawen forth y* day & in family prayer 
afterward. 

17° Sept’ 79° in y® morning y*® Synod considered of y* returne 
made by y* Chhs sent to" none of w* refused to send only Newberry 
where upon y” were received as members of y* Synod. after y° y° 
Plateforme was read & approved for y*® substance by a Unanimous 
vote.® y™ y® Committee’s returne’® was read over & some debate 
upon it. 

18° Sept’ 79° y® Synod was upon y® first question. Lecture 
first Chh 2 Nat. Collins’’ preached [y’ are not humbled unto y’ 
day **]** after Lecture y* sins of oppression was in debate & soe = 
Whellock” declared yt y* was a cry of injustice in yt magistrates & 
ministers were not rated ‘® w° Occasioned a very warme discourse. 
* stodder’® charged y* Deputy *’ with saying what was not true & y° 
Deputy Govern'** told him he deserved to be Laid by y® heals &c, 





1 Increase Mather. 2 Read were. 

3 Samuel Torrey of Weymouth. 4 Joshua Moody of Portsmouth, N. H. 
5 See C. Mather, Parentator, p. 85. 6 John Higginson of Saiem. 

7 Edward Bulkeley of Concord. ei insert are. 


9 The text of this vote approving the Cambridge Platform is given in the Preface to the 
Result, p. 425 of this volume. Cotton Mather, Magualia, ed. 1853-5, I1: 237-241, explains the 
changes in church practice which induced the Synod to introduce the phrase ‘‘ for the substance 
Oleits) 

10 T,e., the Committee appointed Sept. 12, to consider evilsand their remedies. The result was 
drawn up by Increase Mather, Parentator, p. 85; and was read to the Synod and discussed para- 
graph by paragraph, Preface to the Result, p. 425 of this volume. 

11 Probably Rev. Nathaniel Collins of Middletown, Conn., who, as a minister of another 
colony, must have been a visitor rather than a member of the Synod. 

12 Jer. xliv: tro. 13 [ ] in original. 

14 This was ‘‘ Rev.’’ Ralph Wheelock, the ‘‘ father of Medway.’’ He had preached in Eng- 
land and in this country. He was one of the early settlers and a local magistrate at Dedham ; and 
a founder of Medway. There he served as selectman, schoolmaster, and town representative to the 
General Court. He was now about 79 years old. That Thacher gives him the title of *t Rev.” 
shows the strength of usage even in the face of Puritan theory, for in his more than forty years of 
life in New England Wheelock was never pastor of achurch. His opposition to the privileges of 
the real ministry is not therefore surprising. See Tilden, 7st. Town of Medfield, Boston, 1887, 
passim, . 
15 T. e., taxed. 16 Solomon Stoddard of Northampton. 
17 T. e,, Wheelock, who had been ‘deputy ’’ from Medway in the General Court. 
18 Thomas Danforth. 


THE SYNOD’S FIRST SESSION 419 


after we broke up y® deputy & severall others went home with 
= Stodder & y* Deputy asked forgivenesse of him & told him hee 
freely forgave him, but £ Stodder was high. 

19° Sept: 79° ye Deputy owned his being in to great a heat & 
desired y* Lord to forgive &c: & £ Stodder did something thé very 
little by a Deputy. ys day y’ discoursed y° remidyes & debated at 
y° End of Each Paragraph; y* was much debate about persons 
being admitted to full Communion & £ Stodder y* Minister offered 


ri 


to dispute against it & brought one arguem'. = Mather was 
Respondent* £ Oakes Moderat* but after some time y* rest of his 
arguem™, were deferred & at present It was Eased. y® Evening 
what was drawen up by y® comittee? & corrected by y* Synod in 
answer to both questions was Unanimously uoted. & an answer to 
y° Govern's two questions. alsoe a Committee was Chouse [2 Oakes 
= lorry = all in,® = Willard,* = Mather, Cap*. Richards® = Stodder 
Capt. Fisher | to present what y® Synod hath done [after ye had 
prefaced it’] to y® Gen", Court in Octo: in order to have y® Chhs 
&c. & y°* Ministers = Higginson & = Flint® being qaded were 
voted to draw up a Confession of faith against y® next Weensday 
before y° Generall Court of Election next, y* Committee was alsoe 
desired if y® Court approved of it to writte to y® Chhs of y® Vnited 
Colonyes & informe if y¥ pleased to send y* Elders & messengers 
it would be very gratefull.’ after y* a psalme being Sung + Cobbet 
concluded with prayer.” 


The committee thus appointed presented the Result, known 
as the WVecessity of Reformation, to the Court at its session October 
15, 1679, on which occasion Increase Mather “ Preached a very 
Potent Sermon, on the Danger of not being Reformed by these 
Things” ;*® and the Court voted:’ 


‘* This Court, hauing pervsed the result of the late synod of Septemb, 1679, doe 
judge it meete to comend the same to the serious consideration of all the churches 
and people in this jurisdiction, hereby enjoyning and requiring all persons in their 
seuerall capacitjes concerned to a carefull and diligent reformation of all those pro- 
voking evills mentioned therein, according to the true intent thereof, that so the 


1 See Stoddard’s own account of this discussion, p. 280 of this volume. The point is No. III. 
of the proposed remedies for the evils of the time (p. 433). Thacher has reversed the real position of 
Stoddard and Mather unless his ‘‘ dispute against it’’ refers to the report of the Committee under 


discussion rather than to the phrase ‘‘ persons being admitted to full communion.”’ Stoddard was 
arguing in favor of his well known views. 
2 J. e., the Committee of Sept. 12. 8 James Allen of the Boston First Church. 


4 Samuel Willard of the Boston Third, or Old South, Church. 

5 I suppose this is John Richards, a member of the Boston Second Church. 

6 Daniel Fisher, a member of the Dedham Church, prominent in colonial politics. 

7 The preface, as well as the result, was the work of Increase Mather, Parextator, p. 87. 
8 Josiah Flynt, Richard Mather’s successor in the pastorate of the Dorchester Church, 

9 This suggestion came to nothing. 10 Parentator, p. 85. 

11 Records . . . Mass. Bay, V: 244. 


420 THE REFORMING SYNOD, 1679, 1680 


anger and displeasure of God, which hath binn many wayes manifested, maybe 
averted from this poore people, and his favour and blessing obteyned, as in former 
tjmes ; and for this end hath ordered the same to be printed.” 


At the same time the Court appointed a committee “to consider 
our lawes already made, that may neede emendation, or may not 
so Clearly be warranted from the word of God”’;’ criticisms hav- 
ing been passed by the Synod. 

There can be no doubt that the work of the Synod was bene- 
ficial. Churches were stirred up to renewed activity. Covenants 
were solemnly ratified. The young people were urged with some 
success, in many places, to undertake the Christian life.” But the 
political situation of the years after the Synod was such that any 
permanent good was difficult of accomplishment. The financial 
distress consequent upon Philip’s war, the tyranny of Andros, the 
loss of the charter of Massachusetts, and quarrels with the French, 
made the closing years of the seventeenth century a period of 
gloom. The dissipations of military life and the engrossing prob- 
lems of politics alike diminished men’s interest in religion. The 
Synod was a palliative rather than a cure. 

Though the Synod had made no revision of the Cambridge 
Platform, as the Court had thought possible, and though the con- 
servative party, at least, rejoiced in the vote by which the Platform 
was ratified,® the Synod had appointed an able committee to draw 
up a Confession of Faith and report it to a second session of the 
body. That committee had no very arduous task. New England 
had no general Confession, but the Cambridge Synod had ratified 
the doctrinal parts of the Westminster Confession “for the sub- 
stance thereof”; and the work of the Congregationalists at the 


1 [bzd. 

2 Magnalia, ed. 1853-5, Il: 331-333. The Second Church in Boston, for example, renewed 
its covenant March 17, 1680; and the Third June 29. Sermons of peculiar solemnity delivered on 
those occasions by Increase Mather and Samuel Willard were printed. How the improvement of 
the Dorchester church was sought is told thus: ‘‘26285 . . . y® same day ther was read ye 
Conclusion of ye Senod formerly agreed on as y® p’voking sines yt we stood guilty off & to be Hum- 
bled for The 3 3 85 was read a pap from y® governor & Councell to excit ye Elders & minester to 
take Care of their flocks by goeing from hous to hous & see how yé people p’fitting by ye word & 
that instructing ye youth may goe forward at y® same time y® Elder p’posed yt tow of yé tithing 
mens Squadrons at a time appointed should come together to some place for yt end from 8 to 16 
yeers of age to be Catechized & from 16 to 24 y® yong p’sons should come together to be discoursed 
with all ye maids by themselves & ye men by themselves.’’ Rec. First Ch. Dorchester, p. 93. 

3 See preface to Result, p. 425 of this volume. 


THE SYNOD’S SECOND SESSION 421 


Savoy was well known. The two leading members of the com- 
mittee, Mather and Oakes, had been in England while the Savoy 
Synod was in session and were well acquainted with its foremost 
men. It was natural, therefore, that the committee should recom- 
mend the adoption of the Savoy Confession, in practically un- 
changed form,’ as the creed of the Massachusetts churches. Pur- 
suant to its order on adjournment, the Synod met for its second 
session at Boston on May 12, 1680. In the absence of definite 
knowledge we may conjecture that the result was so far a fore- 
gone conclusion that the attendance was less than in September, 
1679. Certainly Peter Thacher was not there, and we miss his 
guidance as to the events. Cotton Mather recorded in his 
Parentator :” 


“On Jay. 12. 1680. The Syzod had a Second Session at Boston; When Our 
Confession of Faith was agreed upon. Though there were many Elder, and some 
Famous, Persons in that Venerable Assembly, yet Mr. JZather® was chosen their 
Moderator. He was then Ill, under the Approaches & Beginnings of a Hever; but 
so Intense was he on the Business to be done, that he forgot his ///zess ; and he kept 
them so close to their Business, that in Two Days they dispatch’d it: and he also 
Composed the Preface to the Confession.” 


That Preface declares that the Savoy Confession, slightly 
modified, “‘ was twice publickly read, examined and approved of ’’* 
by the Synod; and that, as at Cambridge in 1648, desire to avoid 
any imputation of heresy from the Puritan party in England led 
the Synod to prefer the formule of well-known English assemblies 
to an expression of faith in its own language. The fact was 
that, however individual New England might be in church polity, 
no doctrinal peculiarities had been as yet developed on this side 
of the Atlantic. No doctrinal discussions of consequence had 
taken place. The New England churches still stood, as a body, 
with uncriticising loyalty on the basis of the Puritan theology of 
England as it had been in the first half of the seventeenth 
century. 

The Confession, like the Result of the first session of the 
Synod, was duly reported to the Massachusetts General Court, and 
on June 11, 1680, that body voted as follows:° 


1 The only alteration of any moment is in Chap. xxiv, sec. iii. See p. 393 of this volume. 
2 Page 87. See also Magnadia, II: 180. 3 Increase Mather. 
4 See p. 439 of this volume. S’Recoras) 20. Mass. Bay, Vie 287. 


422 THE REFORMING SYNOD, 1679, 1680 


‘“This Court, hauing taken into serious consideration the requests which hath 
been presented by seuerall of the reund elders, in the name of the late synod, doe 
approove thereof, and accordingly order the confession of faith agreed vpon at their 
second session, and the platforme of discipline, consented vnto by the synod at Cam- 
bridge, anno 1648, to be printed for the bennefit of these churches in present and 
after times.” 


Though heartily sympathizing with the statement of doctrine, 
the Court wisely refrained from commanding its use by the 
churches. Accepted as a fair expression of the belief of New 
England, it was reaffirmed and declared the faith of the colony of 
Connecticut at Saybrook in 1708. But it was never intended to bea 
substitute for the local creeds of individual churches. It was 
itself used as a local creed by at least two churches, the Old 
South of Boston’ and the First Church of Cambridge,’ and such 
use illustrates rather than disproves the freedom of the New Eng- 
land churches to formulate their faith each in its own way. That 
freedom enables a modern Congregationalist to view with pleasure 
the creed of 1680 as a noble testimony to the faith of our churches 
at that day, and a historic monument of which they have no 
reason to be ashamed; while he substitutes for its phraseology, if 
he chooses, what he may deem an expression of Scripture truth 
better adapted to the needs of the age in which he lives. He can 
admire the stately fabric of this seventeenth century Puritan creed 
as he admires the great cathedrals of the middle ages, without 
questioning at every turn how much of tinkering and repairing 
with modern, and it may be incongruous, architecture is desirable 
to fit it for present use. 


1 See H. A. Hill, Wzst. Old South, 1: 234, 235; I]: 555. See ante, p. 409. 
2 See A. McKenzie, Lectures on the History of the First Church in Cambridge, Boston, 


1873, p. 267. 


THE RESULT OF 1679, 1680 423 


THE SYNOD’S WORK 


A, THE RESULT OF 1679 


THE’ NECEssITY | oF | REFORMATION | With the Expe- 
dients subservient | thereunto, asserted; | in Answer to two | 
QUESTIONS | 1. What are the Evils that have provoked the Lord 
to bring his Judg- | ments on New-England? | 11. What ts to be done 
that so those Evils may be Reformed? | Agreed upon by the | ELDERS 
and MESSENGERS | of the Churches assembled in the | SYNOD | At 
Boston zz New-England, | Sept. ro. 1679. | balZol.\3.7-oRven 
from the dayes of your Fathers yee are gone away from mine Ordi- 
| nances, and have not kept them; Return unto me and I will re- 
turn unto you, | saith the Lord of Host: but ye said, Wherein shall 
we return? | Rev. 2. 4,5. Nevertheless I have somewhat against 
thee, because thou hast left thy | first love. Remember there- 
fore from whence thou art fallen, and Repent, and doe thy first 
works; or else I will come unto thee quickly and will remove | thy 
Candlestick out of his place, except thou Repent. | | BOSTON; 
| Printed by John Foster, In the Year, 1679. 








{ii blank] 
[iii] 
TO THE MUCH HONOURED 


General Court 
Of the AWassachusets Colony now sitting at Boston 
in VE W-ENGLAND 


Right Worshipful, Worshipful, and much honoured in our Lord Jesus ! 


He Wayes of God towards this his People, have in many respects been like 
unto his dealings with Israel of old: It was a great and high undertaking of 
our Fathers, when they ventured themselves and their little ones upon the 

rude waves of the vast Ocean, that so they might follow the Lord into this Land; 
a parallel instance not to be given, except that of our Father Abraham from Vr of 
the Chaldees, or that of his Seed from the land of Egypt; the Lord alone did lead 
them and there was no strange God with them. In the wilderness have we dwelt in 
safety alone, being made the subjects of most peculiar mercies and priviledges. The 
good will of him that dwelt in the bush hath been upon the head of those that were 
separated from their Brethren: and the Lord hath (by turning a Wilderness into a 
fruitful land) brought us into a wealthy place; he hath planted a Vine, having cast 
out the Heathen, prepared Room for it, and caused it to take deep rooting, and to 


1 On a fly-leaf, facing this title, is the approving vote of the Mass. Gen. Court of Oct. 15, 
1679 (ante, p. 419), attested by Edward Rawson, Secretary. 


424 THE REFORMING SYNOD, 1679, 1680 


fill the land, which hath sent out its boughs unto the Sea, and its branches to the 
River. If we ask of the dayes that are past, and look from the one side of heaven 
to the other, where can we find the like to this great thing which the Lord hath 
done? His planting these heavens, and laying the foundations of this earth, is (if 
any thing be) to be reckoned amongst the wonderful works of God which this age 
hath seen. If we look abroad over the face of the whole earth, where shall we see a 
place or people brought to such perfection and considerableness, in so short a time? 
Our adversaryes themselves being judges, it hath not been so with any of the outgo_ 
ings of the Nations. We must then ascribe all these things, as unto the grace and 
abundant goodness of the Lord our God, so to his owning a religious design and in- 
terest; such was Vew-Zuglands in its primitive constitution. Our Fathers neither 
soughi for, nor thought of great things for themselves, but did seek first the King- 
dome of God, and his righteousness, and all these things were added to them. 
They came not into the wilderness to see a man cloathed in soft raiment. But that 
we have in too many respects, been forgetting the Errand upon which the Lord sent 
us hither ; all the world is witness: [iv] And therefore we may not wonder that God 
hath changed the tenour of his Dispensations towards us, turning to doe us hurt, and 
consuming us after that he hath done us good. If we had continued to be as once 
we were, the Lord would have continued to doe for us, as once he did. This not- 
withstanding, we must not deny or disown what of God is remaining amongst us. 
There is cause to fear that the same evils for which the Lord is contending with us, 
are to be found in other Reformed Churches, and perhaps in an higher degree, then 
as yet with us; considering that these Churches doe still (through the grace of Christ) 
own both the faith and order of the Gospel, that was professed in the dayes of our 
Fathers: and there are a number of precious souls (a few names that have not defiled 
their garments with the sins of the times) we hope in every Congregation: only the 
present Generation in New-England, as to the body of it, in respect of the practice 
and power of Godliness, is far short of those whom God saw meet to improve in lay- 
ing the foundations of his Temple here. and our iniquityes admit of sadder aggrava- 
tions then can be said of others, because we sin against greater light, and means, 
and mercies then ever People (all circumstances considered) have done; and there- 
fore the Lord is righteous in all the evil that hath befallen us. And it is high time 
for us to be earnest, as to an impartial Scrztiny concerning the causes of his holy 
displeasure against us, together with the proper Remedyes or Scripture expedients, 
for Reformation, that so the Lord, who hath said, Return unto me, and I will return 
unto you, may be at peace with us. Essayes respecting this matter have not been 
altogether wanting, but hitherto successless in a great degree. Wherefore, it hath 
pleased God so to dispose, as that your selves, who are the Honoured General Court 
of this Colony, have called upon all the Churches therein, to send their Elders and 
Messengers, that they might meet in form of a Synod, in order to a most serious 
enquiry, into the questions here propounded and answered. We cannot but hope 
this motion was of God, since (after the Prayers of his People have been solemnly 
and abundantly poured out before him that it might be so) evident Tokens of the 
Lords gracious presence in and with that Reverend Assembly, have been taken notice 
of; especially in that he was pleased so to enlighten the minds, and encline the 
hearts of his Servants, (the Messengers and Representatives of the Churches) as that 
there was an unanimity in their Votes and Determinations, and that not only with 
reference to the Answers unto those Questions, but other things then discussed and 
concluded on. There was at first some agitation about the matter of a Regular 


PREFACE TO THE RESULT OF 1679 A425 


Synod, by reason that some of the Churches (notwithstanding their Elders desiring 
them to send other Messengers also) sent their Elders alone. That which is ex- 
pressed in the Platform of Discipline, concerning this particular, was assented unto, 
viz. that not only Elders, but other Messengers ought to be delegated by the 
Churches, and so to have their Suffrages in such Assemblyes. A Principle which 
doth agree with the Primitive Pattern, Act. 15. 23. And with the practice of the 
Churches in the ages next following the Apostles, as is evident from the writings of 
Cyprian, and others of the Ancients. And the interest of the People in such Con- 
ventions is strongly asserted and evinced by our Jwe/, Whitaker, Parker, and others 
against Papists and Prelates, who maintain that Zazcks (as they call them) are not fit 
matter for a Synod. This Debate being issued, it was put to Vote, whether the 
Assembly did approve of Zhe Platform of Church Discipline; & both Elders & 
Brethren did unanimously lift up their hands in the affirmative, not one appearing 
[v] when the Vote was propounded in the Negative, but it joyntly passed in these 
words, 

‘*A Synod of the Churches in the Colony of the Massachusets, being called by 
‘*the honoured General Court to convene at Boston, the 10. of Sept. 1679. having 
“*read and considered the Platform of Church Discipline, agreed upon by the Synod 
‘*“assembled at Cambridge, Anno 1648. doe unanimously approve of the said Plat- 
‘*form, for the substance of it, desiring that the Churches may continue stedfast in 
‘the order of the Gospel, according to what is therein declared from the Word of 
‘*God.[’’] 

Now blessed be the God of our Fathers, that hath enclined our hearts to own 
that Cause and those Truths, which they did with so much industry and faithfulness 
gather from the Scriptures, and on the account whereof they were sometimes Coz/es- 
sors, and Sufferers, being Axz/es in this Wilderness, where the Lord was pleased to 
shew them the Pattern of his House, and all the forms thereof; and we know not 
what Temptations (for there is an hour of Temptation coming upon all the world) 
we may yet meet with; wherefore, the obtaining of the Vote mentioned (had there 
been nothing else done) was well worth our coming together. But besides that, 
several dayes were spent, in discoursing upon the Questions herewith presented ; 
when every Member of the Syzod had full liberty to express himself: after which, 
some were chosen, to draw up what did appear to be the mind of the Assembly, and 
the mind of Christ, in whose name we came together, and considered of this matter. 
The Return made by those who had been appointed unto that Service, was read once 
and again, each Paragraph being duely and distinctly weighed in the ballance of the 
Sanctuary, and then, upon mature deliberation, the whole unanimously voted, as to 
the substance, end, and scope thereof. The things here insisted on, have (at least 
many of them) been oftentimes mentioned and inculcated by those whom the Lord 
hath set as Watchmen to the house of Israel, though alas / not with that success which 
their Souls have desired. It is not a small matter, nor ought it to seem little in our 
eyes, that the Churches have in this way confessed and declared the Truth, which 
coming from a Syzod as their joint concurring Testimony, will carry more Authority 
with it, then if one man only, or many in their single capacityes, should speak the 
same things. And undoubtedly, the issue of this undertaking will be most signal, 
either as to mercy, or misery. If New-England remember whence she is fallen, and 
doe the first works, there is reason to hope that it shall be better with us then at our 
beginnings. But if this, after all other means in and by which the Lord hath been 


striving to reclaim us, shall be despised, or become ineffectual, we may dread what is 
28 


426 THE REFORMING SYNOD, 1679, 1680 


like to follow. It is a solemn thought, that the Jewish Church had (as the Churches 
in New-England have this day) an opportunity to Reform (if they would) in Josiah’s 
time, but because they had no heart unto it, the Lord quickly removed them out of 
his sight. What God out of his Soveraignty may doe for us, no man can say, but 
according to his wonted dispensations, we are a perishing People, if now we Reform 
not. 

Now the Lord help you his Servants, under whose influence, and by whose en- 
couragement, this Synod hath convened, to promote this matter, both by your 
Recommendation of these Conclusions unto the Churches, for their consideration 
and acceptance in the Lord, and otherwise according to your respective Relations and 
Capacities. and the Lord strengthen your hearts and hands therein; for much doth 
depend upon your Courage, Prudence, Zeal and Activity. We doe [vi] not read in the 
Scriptures, nor in History, of any notable general Reformation amongst a People, 
except the Magistrate did help forward the work. NHaggai’s and Zachary’s Sermons, 
would never have built the Temple, if Zerubbabel and Shealtiel (godly Magistrates) 
had not improved their authority for that end. Luther, Calvin, Zuingluis, and 
other Reformers, would have laboured in vain, had not the Princes and Senators 
amongst whom they lived, promoted the interest of Reformation. Nor was it ever 
known, that the civil Authority in any place, did their utmost towards the suppres- 
sion of growing Evils, but there was (at least wise for the present) some good effect 
thereof. These things are therefore commended to your most serious Consideration ; 
It is (under God) by you that we enjoy great quietness. The good Lord continue 
the present Government, and Governours, under whose shadow (as sometimes the 
Remnant of Judah under Gedaliah) we have sat with great delight; and grant that 
every one (both Leaders and People) in their proper place and order, may up and be 
doing, and that the Lord our God may be with us, as he was with our Fathers. 

Now be strong, O Zerubbabel, be strong, O Joshuah, and be strong all ye peo- 
ple of the land, saith the Lord, and work, for I am with you; according to the word 
that I covenanted with you, when ye came out of Egypt; so my Spirit remaineth 
amongst you; Fear ye not. 


[1] QUEST. I. 


MN ta are the Evils that have provoked the Lord to bring his 
Judgements on New-England? 


Answ. That sometimes God hath had, and pleaded a Con- 
troversy with his People, is clear from the Scripture, Hos. 4. 1. 
and 12.2. Mic 6,1, 2. Where God doth plainly and fully pro- 
pose, state and plead his Controversy, in all the parts and Causes 
of it, wherein he doth justifie himself, by the Declaration of his 
own infinite Mercy, Grace, Goodness, Justice, Righteousness, 
Truth and Faithfulness in all his proceedings with them; And 
judge his People, charging them with all those provoking Evils 
which had been the causes of that Controversy, and that with the 
most high, and heavy aggravation of their Sins, and exaggeration 
of the guilt and punishment, whence he should have been most just, 
in pleading out his Controversy with them, unto the utmost ex- 
tremity of Justice and Judgement. 

That God hath a Controversy with his New-England People is 
undeniable, the Lord having written his displeasure in dismal 


THE RESULT OF 1679 427 


Characters against us. Though Personal Affictions doe oftentimes 
come only or chiefly for Probation, yet as to publick Judgements 
it is not wont to be so; especially when by a continued Series of 
Providence, the Lord doth appear and plead against his People. 2 
Sam, 21.1. As with usit hath been from year to year. Would 
the Lord have whetted his glitterring Sword, and his hand have 
taken hold on Judgement? Would he have sent such a mortal 
“omtacion like a, Beesom of, Destruction in’ the midst of, us? 
Would he have said, Sword! goe through the Land, and cut off 
man and Beast? [2] Or would he have kindled such devouring 
Fires, and made such fearfull Desolations in the Earth, if he had 
not been angry? It is not for nothing that the merciful God, who 
doth not willingly afflict nor grieve the Children of men, hath done 
all these things unto us; yea and sometimes with a Cloud hath 
covered himself, that our Prayer should not pass through. And 
although tis possible that the Lord may Contend with us partly on 
pecount-of sectet unobserved Sins, Josh. 7. 11, 12: 2 King. 17. 9. 
Psal. 90. 8. In which respect, a deep and most serious enquiry into 
the Causes of his Controversy ought to be attended. Nevertheless, 
it 1s sadly evident that there are visible, manifest Evils, which 
without doubt the Lord is provoked by. For, 


Z, There isa great and visible decay of the power of Godli- 
ness amongst many Professors in these Churches. It may be 
feared, that there is in too many spiritual and heart Apostacy from 
God, whence Communion with him in the wayes of his Worship, 
especially in Secret, is much neglected, and whereby men cease to 
know and fear, and love and trust in him; but take up their con- 
tentment and satisfaction in something else. This was the ground 
and bottom of the Lords Controversy with his People of old. Psal. 
fee ea od, ble Jel. 2.5, 11,13. And ‘with. his’) People under 
the New Testament also. Rev. 2. 4, 5. 


ZT, The Pride that doth abound in New-England testifies 
Remeiaiedsw sELOSir5 5. luzek> 7. 10) Both ‘spiritual Pride,: Zeph. 
3. 11. Whence two great Evils and Provocations have proceeded 
and prevailed amongst us. 

1. A refusing to be subject to Order according to divine 
eeeecments Numb,.1693., 1-Pet..5. 5: 

eee Ontention, . roy, 13. 10. An evil that is most.eminently 
against the solemn Charge of the Lord Jesus, Joh. 13. 34, 35. And 
that for which God hath by severe Judgements punished his People, 
both in former and latter Ages. This Malady hath been very gen- 
eral in the Country - we have therefore cause to fear that the 
Wolves which God in his holy Providence hath let loose upon us, 
have been sent to chastise his Sheep for their dividings and stray- 
ings one from another; and that the Warrs and Fightings, which 
have proceeded from the Lust of Pride in special, have been 
punished with the Sword, Jam. 4. 1. Job. 19. 29. 

Yea, and Pride in respect to Apparel hath greatly abounded. 
[3] Servants, and the poorer sort of People are notoriously guilty 
in the matter, who (too generally) goe above their estates and 


428 THE REFORMING SYNOD, 1679, 1680 


degrees, thereby transgressing the Laws both of God and man, 
Math. 11.8. Yea, it isa Sin that even the light of ndaturegane 
Laws of civil Nations have condemned. 1 Cor. 11,14. Also, 
many, not of the meaner sort, have offended God by strange 
Apparel, not becoming serious Christians, especially in these dayes 
of affliction and misery, wherein the Lord calls upon men to put 
off their Ornaments, Exod. 33. 5. Jer 4. 30. A Sin which brings 
Wrath upon the greatest that shall be found guilty of it, Zeph. 1. 8. 
with Jer. 52. 13. Particularly, the Lord hath threatned to visit 
with Sword and Sickness, and with loathsome diseases for this very 
Sin. Isa 3. 16. 


ZIT, Inasmuch as it was in a more peculiar manner with 
respect to the second Commandment, that our Fathers did follow 
the Lord into this wilderness, whilst it was a land not sown, we 
may fear that the breaches of that Commandment are some part 
of the Lords Controversy with New-England. Church Fellowship, 
and other divine Institutions are greatly neglected. Many of the 
Rising Generation are not mindfull of that which their Baptism 
doth engage them unto, vzz. to use utmost endeavours that they 
may be fit for, and so partake in, all the holy Ordinances of the 
Lord Jesus. Mat. 28. 20. There are too many that with profane 
Esau slight spiritual priviledges. Nor is there so much of Disci- 
pline, extended towards the Children of the Covenant, as we are 
generally agreed ought to be done. .On the other hand, humane 
Inventions, and Will-worship have been set up even in Jerusalem. 
Men have set up their Thresholds by Gods Threshold, and their 
Posts by his Post. Quakers are false Worshippers: and such 
Anabaptists as have risen up amongst us, in opposition to the 
Churches of the Lord Jesus, receiving into their Society those 
that have been for scandal delivered unto Satan, yea, and im- 
proving those as Administrators of holy Things, who have been (as 
doth appear) /wstly under Church Censures, do no better then set 
up an Altar against the Lords Altar. Wherefore it must needs 
be provoking to God, if these things be not duly and fully testified 
against, by every one in their several Capacityes respectively. 
Josh; 22, 19. 2 King. 23. 43. Ezek. .43.:3.. 4Psal.o9) Si) esas 


IT7I, The Holy and glorious Name of God hath been polluted 
and profaned amongst us, More especially. 

[4] 1. By Oathes, and Imprecationsin ordinary Discourse; Yea, 
and it is too common a thing for men in a more solemn way to 
Swear unnecessary Oaths; whenas it is a breach of the third Com- 
mandment, so to use the blessed Name of God. And many (if not 
the most) of those that swear, consider not the Rule of an Oath. 
Jer. 4. 2. So that we may justly fear that because of swearing the 
Land mourns, Jer. 23: 10! 

2. There is great profaness, in respect of irreverent behaviour 
in the solemn Worship of God. It is a frequent thing for -men 
(though not necessitated thereunto by any infirmity) to sit in 
prayer time, and some with their heads almost covered, and to give 
way to their own sloth and sleepiness, when they should be serv- 


THE RESULT OF 1679 429 


ing God with attention and intention, under the solemn dispensa- 
tion of his Ordinances. We read but of one man in the Scripture 
that slept at a Sermon, and that sin hath like to have cost him his 
life, Act, 20..9. 


V. There is much Sabbath-breaking; Since there are multi- 
tudes that do profanely absent themselves or theirs from the 
publick worship of God, on his Holy day, especially in the most 
populous places the Land; and many under pretence of differing 
apprehensions about the beginning of the Sabbath, do not keep a 
seventh part of Time Holy unto the Lord, as the fourth Command- 
ment requireth, Walking abroad, and Travelling, (not meerly on 
the account of worshipping God in the solemn assemblyes of his 
people, or to attend works of necessity or mercy) being a common 
practice on the Sabbath day, which is contrary unto that Rest en- 
joyned by the Commandment. Yea, some that attend their 
particular servile callings and employments after the Sabbath is 
begun, or before it is ended. Worldly, unsuitable discourses are 
very common upon the Lords day, contrary to the Scripture which 
requireth that men should not on Holy Times find their own pleas- 
ure, nor speak their own words, Isai 58.13. Many that do not take 
care so to dispatch their worldly businesses, that they may be free 
& fit for the dutyes of the Sabbath, and that do (if not wholly neg- 
lect) after a careless, heartless manner perform the dutyes that 
concern the sanctification of the Sabbath. This brings wrath, 
Fires and other Judgements upon a professing People, Neh. 3. 17, 
OMe CTs 27, 27: 


VI, As to what concerns Familyes and the Government 
thereof, [5] there is much amiss. There are many Familyes that 
doe not pray to God constantly morning and evening, and many 
more wherein the Scriptures are not daily read, that so the word 
of Christ might dwell richly with them. Some (and too many) 
Houses that are full of Ignorance and Profaness, and these not 
duely inspected; for which cause Wrath may come upon others 
round about them, as well as upon themselves. Josh. 22. 20. Jer. 
5.7. & 10, 25. And many Housholders who profess Religion, doe 
not cause all that are within their gates to become subject unto 
good order as ought to be.. Ex. 20 10. Nay, children & Servants 
that are not kept in due subjection; their Masters, and Parents 
especially, being sinfully indulgent towards them. This is a sin 
which brings great Judgements, as we see in Eli’s and David’s 
Family. In this respect, Christians in this Land, have become too 
like unto the Indians, and then we need not wonder if the Lord 
hath afflicted us by them. Sometimes a Sin is discerned by the In- 
strument that Providence doth punish with. Most of the Evils that 
abound amongst us, proceed from defects as to Family Government. 


V77. Inordinate Passions. Sinful Heats and Hatreds, and 
that amongst Church Members themselves, who abound with evil 
Surmisings, uncharitable and unrighteous Censures, Back-bitings, 
hearing and telling Tales, few that remember and duely observe 


430 THE REFORMING SYNOD, 1679, 1680 


the Rule, with an angry countenance to drive away the Tale- 
bearer: Reproachfull and reviling Expressions, sometimes to or of 
one another. Hence Law suits are frequent, Brother going to Law 
with Brother, and provoking and abusing one another in publick 
Courts of Judicature, to the Scandal of their holy Profession, Isa. 
58.4. 1 Cor 6 6,7. And in managing the Discipline of Christ, 
some (and too many) are acted by their Passions & Prejudices 
more then by a spirit of Love & Faithfulness towards their Brothers 
Soul, which things are, as against the Law of Christ, so dreadfull 
violations of the Church Covenant, made in the presence of God. 


Vil/7. There is much Intemperance. The heathenish and 
Idolatrous practice of Health-drinking is too frequent. ‘That 
shamefull iniquity of sinfull Drinking is become too general a 
Provocation. Dayes of Training, and other publick Solemnityes, 
have been abused in this respect: And not only English but Indians 
have been debauched, by those that call themselves Christians, who 
have put their [6] bottles to them, and made them drunk also. 
This is a crying Sin, and the more aggravated in that the first 
Planters of this Colony did (as is in the Patent expressed) come 
into this Land with a design to Convert the Heathen unto Christ, 
but if instead of that, they be taught Wickedness, which before 
they were never guilty of, the Lord may well punish us by them. 
Moreover, the Sword, Sickness, Poverty, and almost all the Judge- 
ments which have been upon New-England, are mentioned in the 
Scripture as the woeful fruit of Zaft ‘Sim, Isa, 5; 11, 120 ese ee 
2, CY. 50. 9, 12. Prov. 23. 21, 29:30. @?)21. 47. ELOSe 7.5 an eee 
There are more Temptations and occasions unto Zhat Szn, pub- 
lickly allowed of, then any necessity doth require; the proper end 
of Taverns, &c. being for the entertainment of Strangers, which if 
they were improved to that end only, a far less number would 
suffice: But it isa common practice for Town-dwellers, yea and 
Church-members, to frequent publick Houses, and there to misspend 
precious Time, unto the dishonour of the Gospel, and the scandal- 
izing of others, who are by such examples induced to sin against 
God. In which respect, for Church-members to be unnecessarily 
in such Houses, is sinfull, scandalous, and provoking to God. 1 
Cor. Sho 10s Romar er eather yee eel Gary 

And there are other hainous breaches of the seventh Command- — 
ment. ‘Temptations thereunto are become too common, viz. such 
as immodest Apparel, Prov. 7. 10 Laying out of hair, Borders, 
naked Necks and Arms, or, which is more abominable, naked 
Breasts, and mixed Dancings, light behaviour and expressions, 
sinful Company-keeping with light and vain persons, unlawfull 
Gaming, an abundance of Idleness, which brought ruinating Judge- 
ment upon Sodom, and much more upon Jerusalem. Ezek. 16. 49. 
and doth sorely threaten New-England, unless effectual Remedyes 
be throughly and timously applyed. 


IX, There is much want of Truth amongst men. Promise- 
breaking is a common sin, for which New-England doth hear ill 
abroad in the world. And the Lord hath threatned for that trans- 


THE RESULT OF 1679 431 


gression to give his People into the hands of their Enemies, and 
that their dead bodyes should be for meat unto the Fowls of heaven, 
and to the Beasts of the earth; which Judgements have been veri- 
fied upon us, Jer. 34. 18, 20. And false Reports have been too 
common, yea, walking with slanders and Reproaches, and that 
sometimes against the most faithfull and eminent Servants of God. 
The Lord is not [7] wont to suffer such Iniquity to pass unpunished. 
Pemeoet5.s Numb, 16. 41. 


X. Inordinate affection to the world. Idolatry is a God pro- 
voking, Judgement-procuring sin. And Covetousness is Idolatry. 
Eph. 5.5. There hath been in many professors an insatiable de- 
sire after Land, and worldly Accommodations, yea, so as to forsake 
Churches and Ordinances, and to live like Heathen, only that so 
they might have Elbow-room enough in the world. Farms and 
merchandising have been preferred before the things of God. In 
this respect, the Interest of New-England seemeth to be changed. 
We differ from other out-goings of our Nation, in that it was not 
any worldly consideration that brought our Fathers into this wil- 
derness, but Religion, even that so they might build a Sanctuary 
unto the Lords Name; Whenas now, Religion is made subservient 
unto worldly Interests. Such iniquity causeth War to be in the 
Serecrand Cityesnto pe burnt up. Judges 3.5. Math, 22: .5,.7. 
Wherefore, we cannot but solemnly bear witness against that prac- 
tice of setling Plantations without any Ministry amongst them, 
which is to prefer the world before the Gospel. When Lot did 
forsake the Land of Canaan, and the Church which was in Abra- 
hams Family, that so he might have better worldly Accommodations 
in Sodom, God fired him out of all, and he was constrained to 
leave his goodly pastures, which his heart (though otherwise a 
good man) was too much set upon. Moreover, that many are 
under the prevailing power of the sin of worldliness is evident, 

1. From that oppression which the Land groaneth under. 
There are some Traders, who sell their goods at excessive Rates, 
Day-Labourers and Mechanicks are unreasonable in their demands; 
Yea, there have been those that have dealt deceitfully and oppres- 
sively towards the Heathen amongst whom we live, whereby they 
have been scandalized and prejudiced against the Name of Christ. 
The Scripture doth frequently threaten Judgments for the sin of 
oppression, and in special the oppressing Sword cometh asa just pun- 
Seeeeeomtouatevil. ozek. 17-11, and.22.15, Prov. 28. 8:, Isap. 

ne] 
: 2. It is also evident, that men are under the prevailing power 
of a worldly Spirit, by their strait-handedness, as to publick con- 
cernments. God by a continued series of providence, for many 
years one after another, hath been blasting the fruits of the Earth, 
in a great measure; and this year more abundantly; Now if we 
search the [8] Scriptures, we shall find, that when the Lord hath 
been provoked to destroy the fruits of the Earth, either by noxious 
Creatures, or by his own immediate hand in blastings or droughts, 
or excessive Rains, (all which judgments we have experience of) it 
hath been mostly for this sin of strait-handedness with reference 


432 THE REFORMING SYNOD, 1679, 1680 


unto publick and pious concerns, Hag. 1.9. Mal. 3. 8,9, 11. As 
when peoples hearts and hands are enlarged upon these Accounts, 
God hath promised, (and is wont in his faithful providence to do 
accordingly) to bless with outward plenty and prosperity, Prov. 3. 
9, 10. Mali3r10 1.Cor. 9. 6; 8,-10. 2) Chron:937-%10. sO mame 
other hand, when men withold more then is meet, the Lord sends 
impoverishing judgments upon them, Prov. 11. 24. 


XJ, There hath been opposition unto the work of Reforma- 
tion. Although the Lord hath been calling upon us, not only by 
the voice of his Servants, but by awfull judgments, that we should 
return unto him, who hath been smiting us; and notwithstanding 
all the good Laws that are established for the suppression of grow- 
ing evils, yet men w¢// not return every one from his evil way. 
There hath been great incorrigibleness under lesser judgments; 
Sin and sinners have many Advocates. They that have been zeal- 
ous in bearing witness against the sins of the Times, have been 
reproached, and other wayes discouraged; which argueth an heart - 
unwilling to Reform. Hence the Lords Controversy is not yet 
done, but. his hand 1s stretched out still, Lévy. 26: 23, 24.) Isaipazeue 


X//, A publick Spirit is greatly wanting in the most of men. 
Few that are of Nehemiah’s Spirit, Neh. 5. 15. All seek their own, 
not the things that are Jesus Christs; Serving themselves upon 
Christ, and his holy Ordinances. Matters appertaining to the 
Kingdome of God, are either not at all regarded, or not in the first 
place. Hence Schools of learning and other publick concerns are ~ 
in a languishing state. Hence also are unreasonable complaints 
and murmurings because of publick charges, which is a great sin; 
and a private self-seeking Spirit, is one of those evils that renders 
thelast. Times perilous, 2 Tims: or, 


A//I/, There are sins against the Gospel, whereby the Lord 
hath been provoked. Christ is not prized and embraced in all his 
Offices and Ordinances as ought to be. Manna hath been loathed, 
the pleasant Land despised, Psal. 106. 24, Though the Gospel 
and Co-[g]venant of grace call upon men to repent, yet there are 
multitudes that refuse to Repent, when the Lord doth vouch safe 
them time and means. No sins provoke the Lord more then Im- 
penitency '& unbelief Jers8:6.. yZechi a) 15,02) 13. . Hebseeee 
Rev. 2. 21, 22. There is great unfruitfulness under the means of 
grace, and that brings the most desolating Judgements, Isai. 5. 4, 5. 
Math: scqo0) andi2rs 43. 

Finally; there are several considerations, which seem to evi- 
dence, that the Evils mentioned are the matters of the Lords 
Controversy. 

1. In that (though not as to all) as to most of them they are 
sins which many are guilty of, 

2. Sins which have been acknowledged before the Lord on 
dayes of Humiliation appointed by Authority, and yet not Re- 
formed. 

3. Many of them not punished (and some of them not pun- 
ishable) by men, therefore the Lord himself doth punish for them. 


THE RESULT OF 1679 435 


OU Lay bl 
Wave is to be done that so these Evils may be Reformed. 


Answ. I. It would tend much to promote the Interest of 
Reformation, if all that are in place above others, do as to them- 
selves and Familyes, become every way exemplary. Moses being 
to Reform others began with what concerned himself and his. 
People are apt to follow the example of those that are above them. 
reno Ge, 1.) (salo. 045 If then, there be a divided) heart,.or 
any other of the Sins of the times, found in any degree among 
those (or any of them) that are Leaders, either as to Civil or 
Ecclesiastical Order, Reformation there would have a great and 
happy influence upon many. 


Z7, Inasmuch as the present standing Generation (both as to 
Leaders and People) is for the greater part another Generation 
then [10] what was in New-England fourty years agoe, for us to 
declare our adherence unto the Faith and order of the Gospel, ac- 
cording to what is from the Scripture expressed in the Platform of 
Discipline, may be likewise a good means both to recover those 
that have erred from the Truth, and to prevent Apostacy for the 
Future. 


ITT, It is requisite that persons be not admitted unto Com- 
munion in the Lords Supper without making a personal and pub- 
lick profession of their Faith and Repentance, either orally, or in 
some other way, so as shall be to the just satisfaction of the 
Church; and that therefore both Elders and Churches be duely 
watchfull and circumspect in this matter. 1 Cor. 11. 28, 29. Act. 
een 42s, Lzek. 44,-7,.9,.9. 


LIZ7f, In order to Reformation, it is necessary that the Dis- 
cipline of Christ in the power of it should be upheld in the 
Churches. It is evident from Christs Epistles to the Churches in 
the lesser Asia, that the evils and degeneracy then prevailing 
among Christians, proceeded chiefly from the neglect of Disci- 
pline. It is a known and true observation, that remissness in the 
exercise of Discipline, was attended with corruption of manners, 
and that did provoke the Lord to give men up to strong delusions 
in matters of Faith. Discipline is Christs Ordinance, both for the 
prevention of Apostacy in Churches and to recover them when 
collapsed. And these New English Churches, are under peculiar 
engagements to be faithfull unto Christ, and unto his Truth in this 
matter, by virtue of the Church Covenant, as also in that the man- 
agement of Discipline according to the Scriptures, was the special 
design of our Fathers in coming into this wilderness. The degen- 
eracy of the Rising Generation (so much complained of) is in a 
great measure to be attributed unto neglects of this nature. If all 
Church duty in these respects, were faithfully and diligently at- 
tended, not only towards Parents, but also towards the Children of 


A434. THE REFORMING SYNOD, 1679, 1680 


the Church, according to the Rules of Christ, we may hope that 
the sunk and dying interest of Religion, will be revived, and a 
world of sin prevented for the future; and that Disputes respect- 
ing the Subject of Baptism, would be comfortably issued. 


V. It is requisite that utmost endeavours should be used, in 
order unto a full supply of Officers in the Churches, according to 
Christs Institution. ‘The defect of these Churches on this account 
is very lamentable, there being in most of the Churches only one 
Teaching Officer, for the burden of the whole Congregation to lye 
upon. The Lord Christ would not have instituted Pastors, Teach- 
ers, Ruling Elders (nor the Apostles have ordained Elders in every 
Church) Act. [11] 14.23. Tit? 1. 5.) if hé hadsnotseen tiegemas 
need of them for the good of his People; and therefore for men to 
think they can do well enough without them, is both to break the 
second Commandment, and to reflect upon the wisdome of Christ, 
as if he did appoint unnecessary Officers in his Church. Experi- 
ence hath evinced, that personal instruction and Discipline, hath 
been an happy means to Reform degenerated Congregations; yea, 
and owned by the Lord for the conversion of many Souls: but 
where there are great Congregations, it is impossible for one man, 
besides his labours in publick, fully to attend these other things of 
great importance; and necessary to be done in order to an effect- 
ual Reformation of Familyes and Congregations. 


V7, It is incumbent on the Magistrate, to take care that 
these Officers have due encouragement, and maintenance afforded 
to them. It is high injustice and oppression, yea, a Sin that cryes 
in the Lords ears for judgement, when wages is witheld from faith- 
full and diligent Labourers. Jam. 5.4. And if it be so to those 
that labour about carnal things, much more as to those that labour 
day & night about the spiritual and eternal welfare of Souls, 1 Cor. 
g. 11, 13, 14. And the Scripture is express that not only Members 
of Churches, but all that are taught in the word, are bound to 
communicate to him that Teacheth, and that in all good things. 
Gal. 6,6, Luk. ro 7. 1 Tim, 5, 17,°18) _Iixtheretores Pegg: mr 
unwilling to doe what justice and reason calls for, the Magistrate 
is to see them doe their duty in this matter. Wherefore, Magis- 
trates, and that in Scriptures referring to the dayes of the New 
Testament, are said to be the Churches nursing Fathers. Isa. 49 
23. For that it concerns them to take care that the Churches be 
fed with the bread and water of Life. The Magistrate is to be a 
keeper of both Tables, which as a Magistrate he cannot be, if he 
doe not promove the interest of Religion, by all those means which 
are of the Lords appointment. And we find in Scripture, that 
when the Lords Ministers have been forced to neglect the House 
of God, and goe every one into the field (as too much of that hath 
been amongst us) because the People did not allow them that 
maintenance which was necessary, the Magistrate did look upon 
himself as concerned to effect a Reformation. Neh. 13. ro. 


V7Z/7, Due care and faithfulness with respect unto the estab- 
lishment and execution of wholsome Laws, would very much pro- 


THE RESULT OF 1679 435 


mote the interest of Reformation. If there be no Laws established 
in the Common-wealth, but what there is Scripture warrant for, 
and those [12] Laws so worded, as that they may not become a 
snare unto any that are bound to animadvert upon the Violators 
of them, and that then they be impartially executed; Profaneness, 
Heresy, Schism, Disorders in Familyes, Towns, Churches would be 
happily prevented and Reformed. In special it is necessary, that 
those Laws for Reformation of provoking evils, enacted and emit- 
ted by the General Court in the day of our Calamity, should be 
duely considered, lest we become guilty of dissembling and dally- 
ing with the Almighty, and thereby Sin and Wrath be augmented 
upon us: in particular, those Laws which respect the Regulation of 
Houses for publick entertainment, that the number of such Houses 
doe not exceed what is necessary, nor any so entrusted but per- 
sons of known approved piety and Fidelity, and that Inhabitants 
be prohibited drinking in such Houses, and those that shall with- 
out License from Authority sell any sort of strong drink, be ex- 
emplarily punished. And if withal, inferiour Officers, Constables 
and Tithing men, be chosen constantly of the ablest and most pru- 
dent in the place, Authorized and Sworn to a faithful discharge of 
their respective Trusts, and duely encouraged in their just inform- 
ations against any that shall transgress the Laws so established, 
we may hope that much of that prophaneness which doth threaten 
the ruine of the uprising Generation will be prevented. 


VI/f, Solemn and explicit Renewal of the Covenant is a 
Scripture Expedient for Reformation. We seldome read of any 
solemn Reformation but it was accomplished in this way, as the 
Scripture doth abundantly declare and testify. And as the Judge- 
ments which befel the Lords people of old are recorded for our 
Admonition, 1. Cor. 10.11. So the Course which they did (accord- 
ing to God) observe in order to Reformation and averting those 
Judgements, is recorded for our imitation; And this was an Ex- 
plicit Renovation of Covenant. And that the Lord doth call us to 
this work, these considerations seem to evince. 1. If Implicit Re- 
newal of Covenant be an expedient for Reformation, and to divert 
impending wrath and Judgement, then much more an Explicit 
Renewal is so. But the first of these is Indubitable. In prayer, 
and more especially on dayes of solemn Humiliation before the 
Lord, there is an Implicit Renewal of Covenant, and yet the very 
dictates of natural Conscience put men upon such dutyes, when 
they are apprehensive of a day of wrath, approaching. If we may 
not Renew our Covenants with God, for fear lest men should not 
be true and faithful in doing what they promise, then we must not 
observe dayes of Fasting and Prayer; which none will say. 

[13] 2. When the Church was overrun with Idolatry and Super- 
stition, those whom the Lord raised up as Reformers, put them 
upon solemn Renewal of Covenant. So Asa, Jehojadah, Hezekiah, 
Josiah. Bya parity of Reason, when Churches are overgrown with 
worldiness (which is spiritual Idolatry) and other corruptions, the 
Same course may and should be observed in order to Reforma- 
tion. Nay, 3. We find in Scripture, that when corruption in manners 


436 THE REFORMING SYNOD, 1679, 1680 


(though not in Worship) hath prevailed in the Church, Renova- 
tion of Covenant hath been the expedient, whereby Reformation 
hath been attempted, and in some measure attained. The Jews 
have dreaded the sin of Idolatry ever since the Babylonian Cap- 
tivity, Joh. 8. 41. But in Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s time, too much 
sensuality and Sabbath breaking, Oppression, Strait-handedness 
respecting the publick Worship of God (the very same sins that are 
found with us) were common, prevailing iniquityes. Therefore did 
those Reformers put them upon Renewing their Covenant, and 
solemnly to promise God that they would endeavour not to offend 
by those Evils as formerly, Ezra. 10. 3. Neh. 5. 12, 13. and ro. per 
totum, and 13. 15. 4. The things which are mentioned in the 
Scripture as grounds of Renewing Covenant, are applicable unto 
us, e.g. The averting of divine wrath is expressed as a sufficient 
Reason for attendance unto this duty. 2 Chron. 29. 10. Ezra to 
14. Again, being circumstanced with difficultyes and distresses is 
mentioned as the ground of Explicit Renovation of Covenant. 
Neh. 9. 38. Hence the Lords Servants, when so circumstanced, 
have been wont to make solemn vows (and that is an express Coy- 
enanting) . Gen: 28.20, ex. Judgy 11307) Numb) 214 peeve 
that Clouds of wrath are hanging over these Churches, every one 
seeth; And that we are circumstanced with some distressing diffi- 
cultyes is sufficiently known. ‘This consideration alone, might be 
enough to put us upon more solemn engagements unto the Lord our 
God. 5. Menare hereby brought under a stronger obligation, unto 
better obedience. ‘There is an Awe of God upon the Consciences 
of men when so obliged. As it is in respect of Oaths, they that 
have any Conscience in them, when under such Bonds, are afraid 
to violate them. Some that are but Legalists and Hypocrites, yet 
solemn Covenants with God, have such an Awe upon Conscience, 
as to enforce them unto an outward Reformation, and that doth 
divert temporal Judgements. And they that are sincere, will 
thereby be engaged unto a more close and holy walking before the 
Lord, and so become more eminently blessings unto the Societyes 
and places whereto they [14] do belong. 6. This is the way to 
prevent, (and therefore also to recover out of) A’postasy. In this 
respect, although there were no visible degeneracy amongst us, yet 
this Renovation of Covenant, might be of singular advantage. 
There was no publick Idolatry (nor other Transgression) allowed 
of in the dayes of Joshua. Judg. 2. 7. Josh. 23. 8. yet did Joshua 
perswade the children of Israel, to renew their Covenant; doubt- 
less, that so he might thereby restrain them from future Idolatry 
and Apostasy. Josh. 24. 25. Lastly, The Churches which have 
lately and solemnly attended this Scripture expedient, for Reforma- 
tion, have experienced the presence of God with them, signally 
owning them therein; How much more might a blessing be ex- 
pected, should there be a general concurrence in this matter? 


ZX. In Renewing Covenant, it is needful that the sins of 
the Times should be engaged against, and Reformation thereof (in 
the name and by the help of Christ) promised before the Lord, 
Ezra/10.93.. Neh. s5.;42.1rayand Chapa, 


THE RESULT OF 1679 437 


X. It seems to be most conducive unto Edification and 
Reformation, that in Renewing Covenant, such things as are clear 
and indisputable be expressed, that so all the Churches may agree 
in Covenanting to promote the Interest of holiness, and close 
walking with God. 


Mew AS al expedient for Reformation, if 1s good that 
effectual care should be taken, respecting Schools of Learning. 
The interest of Religion and good Literature have been wont to 
rise and fall together. We read in the Scripture of Masters and 
scholars, and of Schools and Colledges. 1 Chron. 25.8. Mal. 2. 
Pee GUL. O. did 22.5378 And the most eminent Reformers 
amongst the Lords People of old, thought it their concern to erect 
and uphold them. Was not Samuel (that great Reformer) Presi- 
dent of the Colledge at Najoth, 1 Sam. 1g. 18, 19. and is thought 
to be one of the first Founders of Colledges. Did not Elijah and 
Elisha, restore the Schools erected in the Land of Israel? And 
Josiah (another great Reformer) showed respect to the Colledge 
at Jerusalem. 2 King. 22.14. Ecclesiastical Story informs, that 
great care was taken by the Apostles, and their immediate Suc- 
cessors, for the setling of Schools in all places, where the Gospel 
had been preached, that so the interest of Religion might be pre- 
served, and the Truth propagated to succeeding Generations. It 
is mentioned as one of the greatest mercyes that ever God 
bestowed upon his People Israel, that he raised up of their Sons for 
Prophets, Amos 2. 11. which hath respect to their education in 
Schools [15] of Learning. And we have all cause to bless God 
that put it into the hearts of our Fathers to take care concerning 
this matter. For these Churches had been in a state most deplora- 
ble, if the Lord had not blessed the Colledge,’ so as from thence 
to supply most of the Churches, as at this day. When New-Eng- 
land was poor, and we were but few in number Comparatively, there 
was a Spirit to encourage Learning and the Colledge was full of 
Students, whom God hath made blessings, not only in this, but in 
other Lands; but it is deeply to be lamented, that now, when we 
are become many, and more able then at the beginnings, that 
Society and other inferior Schools are in such a low and languish- 
ing State. Wherefore as we desire that Reformation and Religion 
should flourish, it concerns us to endeavour, that both the Colledge, 
and all other Schools of Learning in every place, be duely inspected 
and encouraged. 

X//, Inasmuch as a thorough and heart Reformation is nec- 
essary, in order to obtaining peace with God, Jer. 3. 10. and all 
outward means will be ineffectual unto that end, except the Lord 
pour down his Spirit from on High, it doth therefore concern us to 
cry mightily unto God, both in ordinary and extraordinary manner, 
that he would be pleased to rain down Righteousness upon us, 
Pees eetooe tlOsei0, 12), luzek. 30, 29), Luk. 1, 13, Amen! 


1 Harvard. 


FINIS. 


438 THE REFORMING SYNOD, 1679, 1680 


B. THE CONFESSION OF 1680 


A!| CONFESSION | or | FAITH | Owned and consented 
unto by the | Elders and Messengers | of the Churches | Assembled 
at Boston in New-England, | May 12, 1680. | Being the second Session 
of that| SYNOD. | | —— | Eph. 4. 5. - - - One Faith. 
| Col. 2. 5. Joving and beholding your Order, and the | stedfastness of 
your Faith in Christ. | | BOSTON; | Printed by /ohn Foster. 


1680. 
fii blank] 
[iii] 








dl ele aCe, 


HE Lord Jesus Christ witnessed a good Confession, at the time when he said, 

To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the World, that I 
should bear witness unto the Truth; and he taketh notice of it, to the praise 

and high commendation of the Church in Pergamus, that they held fast his name, 
and had not denied his Faith. Nor are they worthy of the name of Christians, who 
though the Lord by his Providence call them publickly to own the Truth they have 
professed, shall nevertheless refuse to declare what they believe, as to those great and 
fundamental Principles in the Doctrine of Christ, the knowledge whereof ts neces- 
sary unto Salvation. VVe find how ready the Apostle was to make A Confession 
of his Faith; though for that hopes sake he was accused, and put in chains. And 
the Martyrs of Jesus, who have laid down their lives in bearing witness to the 
truth, against the Infidelity, Idolatry, Heresy, Apostasie of the world, when Pagan, 
Arian, or overspread with Popish darkness: ha-liv|ving their feet shod with the 
preparation of the Gospel of peace, were free and forward in their Testimony, con- 
fessing the Truth, yea sealing it with their blood. With the heart man believeth 
unto Righteousness, and with the mouth Confession is made unto Salvation. ow. 
10. 10. Vor is there a greater evidence of being in a state of salvation, then such 
a Confession, tf made in times or places where men are exposed to utmost suffering 
upon that account, 1 Joh. 4.15. Andif Confession of Faith be, in some cases, of 
such importance and necessity, as hath been expressed ; 1t must needs be in it self, a 
work pleasing in the sight of God, for his Servants to declare unto the world, what 
those Principles of Truth are, which they have received, and are (by the help of 
Christ) purposed to live and dye in the stedfast Profession of. Some of the Lords 
Worthyes have been of renown among his People in this respect ; especially Irenzeus 
and Athanasius of old, and of latter times Beza, all whose (not to mention others) 
Confessions, wth the advantage which the Church of God hath received thereby, are 
famously known. And it must needs tend much to the honour of the dear and 
blessed name of the Lord Jesus, in case many Churches do joyn together in their 
Testimony. How signally the Lord hath owned the Confession of the four general 
Synods or Councils for the suppression of the Heresyes of those times, needs not to 
be said, since no man can be ignorant thereof, that hath made it his |v] concern to be 
acquainted with things of this nature. The Confession of the Bohemians, of the 
Waldenses, and of the Reformed Protestant Churches abroad (which also, to shew 


1 On a fly-leaf, facing this title, is a copy of the approval of the Court (azZe, p. 422), signed 
by its Secretary, Edward Rawson. 


PREFACE TO CONFESSION OF 1680 439 


what Harmony in respect of Doctrine there 1s among all sincere Professors of the 
Truth, have been published in one Volume) all these have been of singular use, not 
only to those that lived in the Ages when these Declarations were emitted, but unto 
Posterity, yea unto this day. 

There have been some who have reflected upon these New-English Churches for 
our defect in this matter, as.tf our Principles were unknown; wheras it ts well 
known, that as to matters of Doctrine we agree with other Reformed Churches : 
Nor was tt that, but what concerns Worship and Discipline, that caused our Fathers 
to come into this wilderness, whiles tt was a land not sown, that so they might have 
liberty to practice accordingly. And it is a ground of holy rejoycing before the 
Lord, that now there is no advantage left for those that may be disaffected towards 
us, to olject any thing of that nature against us. Lor it hath pleased the only wise 
God so to dispose in his Providence, as that the Elders and Messengers of the 
Churches in the Colony of the Massachusets 77 New-England, aid, by the Call and 
Encouragement of the honoured General Court, meet together Sept. 10, 1679. This 
Synod at their second Session, which was May 12. 1680. consulted and considered of 
a[vi| Confession of Faith. That which was consented unto by the Elders and Mes- 
sengers of the Congregational Churches zz England, who met at the Savoy (being 
for the most part, some small variations excepted, the same with that which was 
agreed upon first by the Assembly at Westminster, & was approved of by the Synod 
at Cambridge 7x New-England, Azno 1648. as also by a general Assembly zz Scot- 
land) was twice publickly read, examined and approved of. that little variation 
which we have made from the one, in compliance with the other may be seen by those 
who please to compare them. But we have (for the main) chosen to express our 
selves in the words of those Reverend Assemblyes, that so we might not only with 
one heart, but with one mouth glorifie God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. 

As to what concerns Church-Government, we refer to the Platform of Disci- 
pline agreed upon by the Messengers of these Churches Anno 1648. & solemnly 
owned & confirmed by the late Synod. 

What hours of Temptation may overtake these Churches, ts not for us to say. 
Only the Lord doth many times so order things, that when his People have made a good 
Confession, they shall be put upon the trial one way or other, to see whether they have 
(or who among them hath not) been sincere in what they have done. The Lord 
grant that the loins of our minds may be so girt about with Truth, that we may be 
able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 


[t] = 
CONFESSION 
OF 


irvarlhd Mee 


[This Confession fills pages 1 to 65 of the little book, and is 
‘so nearly identical with the doctrinal part of that adopted at the 
Savoy Synod in 1658 that I have ventured to omit the text here, 
and to refer the reader to pages 367 to 402 of this volume, where 
‘tthe Savoy Confession may be found, and where the few variations 
‘of this Confession from its prototype are indicated in the notes. ] 


XIV 
THE HEADS OF AGREEMENT OF siGat 


EDITIONS AND REPRINTS 


I. Heads of Agreement Assented to by the United Ministers in and about 
London: Formerly called Presbyterian and Congregational, London, r6gz. 4° pp. 
[vi], 16.1 

II. Cotton Mather, Blessed Unions . . . a Discourse Which makes Divers 
Offers, for those Unions; Together with A Copy of those Articles, where-upon a 
most Happy Union, ha’s been lately made between those two Eminent Parties in 
England, which have now Changed the Names of Presbyterians, and Congregationals, 
for that of United Brethren, Boston, 1692, 12° pp. x, 86, 12. 

III. Cotton Mather, JZagnala, London, 1702, Book V: 59-61; ed. Hartford, 
1853-5, II: 273-276. 

IV. At New London in 1710, in connection with the Result of the Saybrook 
Synod, and in the subsequent editions of that Result.? 

V. Neal, History of New England, London, 1720, II: 656-663. 

VI. Bogue & Bennett, History of Dissenters, London, 1808-12; ed. 1833, I: 
382-386. 

VIL. In The Discipline Practised in the Churches of New England, Whit-. 
church, Salop, England, 1823. 

VIII. In Zhe Cambridge and Saybrook Platforms . . . with the Confes-. 
sion of . . . 680, and the Heads of Agreement assented to by the Presbyte-. 
vians and Congregationalists in England in r6go. Boston, T. R. Marvin, 1829, 
pp. 125-132. 

IX. T.C. Upham, Ratio Discipline, Portland, 1829, pp. 303-311. 

X. In Congregational Order. The Ancient Platforms of the Congregational 
Churches of New England . . . Published by direction of the General Asso-. 
ciation of Connecticut, Middletown, 1843, pp. 251-263.? 


SOURCES 


Matthew Mead, Zwo Sticks made one, or the Excellence of Unity. Being a 
Sermon Preached by the Appointment of the Ministers of the Congregational and 
Presbyterian Perswastion, at their Happy Union. On the sixth day of April, 16gr,* 
London, 1691. 

A Brief History of Presbytery and Independency, from their first original to 
this Time . . . With some remarks on the late Heads of Agreement,’ etc., 
London, 1691. 


1 Full title in reprint at close of this chapter. 2 See next chapter. 

3 Dr. Dexter notes other editions of Congregational Order, as Hartford [1842] and 1845. 

4 Unfortunately about all the historical value of this sermon is in its title. The preacher 
gave abundant exhortation, but no facts. 

5 Anonymous, contains little of value. 


(440 ) 


ENGLISH CONGREGATIONALISM AND PRESBYTERIANISM 44I 


Free Thoughts occasioned by the Heads of Agreement,' etc., London, 1691. 

A History of the Union between the Presbyterian and Congregational Mints- 
ters in and about London, and the Causes of the Breach of it,? London, 2nd ed., 
1698. 


LITERATURE 


Cotton Mather, Blessed Unions, etc.2 C. Mather, Magnalia, London, 1702, 
ed. Hartford, 1853-5, Il: 272. Neal, History of New England, London, 1720, 
II: q11. C. Mather, Parentator. Memoirs of Remarkables in the Life and the 
Death of the Ever-Memorable Dr. Increase Mather, Boston, 1724, pp. 147, 148. 
Bogue & Bennett, History of Dissenters, London, 1808-12; ed. 1833, I: 381. 
Bacon, Discourse, in Cont. Eccles. History of Connecticut, New Haven, 1861, pp. 
35-37. Fletcher, History of Independency, London, 1862, IV: 266-268. J. Wad- 
dington, Congregational History, 1567-1700, London, 1874, pp. 675-677. Dexter, 
Congregationalism, as seen in tts Literature, p. 489. Stoughton, History of Relig- 
ton in England, London, 1881, V: 293-299. 


HE Westminster Assembly and the later history of Parlia- 
aly ment during the struggle with Charles I. showed clearly the 
radical difference in view between Presbyterians and Con- 
gregationalists. Alike in doctrine, in their hatred of prelacy, and 
in their conceptions of the proper forms of worship, and largely 
accordant in their views as to the nature of the ministry and its 
functions, their great point of divergence was in regard to the ex- 
istence or non-existence of a national church. To such an institu- 
tion the Presbyterians clung. In their estimation the local con- 
gregation was to be a part of a reformed church of England, 
responsible to a series of church courts which should knit together 
the whole. In the Congregational view, on the other hand, no 
such thing as a national church existed. There should be 
churches, each independent in its local concerns, each bound to 
its neighbors by links of fellowship and advice (though on this 
point English Congregationalism never arrived at any such clear- 
ness of conception as was attained in New England); but over 
these churches the Congregationalist would place no ecclesiastical 
body, self-constituted or representative of the churches as a whole, 
whose behests could bind the action of the smallest local congre- 


1 Anonymous, I have not seen this tract. 

2 An exceedingly well-informed account of the rupture of the Union, written by an anony- 
mous Congregationalist. ‘ 

3 See No. II. under 7ex¢s. It contains little of value beyond a dedication to Matthew Mead,. 
John Howe, and Increase Mather, as the authors of the Union. 


29 


442 THE HEADS OF AGREEMENT 


gation. Here, then, was a radical and, as experience proved, 
irreconcilable difference of conception. 

But though the great body of Presbyterians and Congrega- 
tionalists walked in divided paths, there were not wanting a 
number of attempts at union under the Commonwealth. Such a 
union was effected, on principles which reflect credit on the Chris- 
tian charity of the two parties, in the far northwestern counties of 
Cumberland and Westmoreland in 1656.1. At about the same time 
similar associations came into being in Worcestershire, Devonshire, 
Essex, Dorset, Wiltshire, Hampshire, Yorkshire, and Lancashire.’ 
But though these bodies had some partial success in fusing to- 
gether the rival parties in these various districts of England, the 
populous region immediately about London saw no real union be- 
tween them under the Commonwealth. 

With the Restoration the whole situation was changed. The 
repressive acts of the government bore on Congregationalists and 
Presbyterians with impartial severity. The Act of Uniformity of 
1662° drove some 2,000 Puritan ministers from their livings in the 
Church of England. The same year saw, for the first time since 
the Reformation, the prescription of episcopal ordination as a 
necessity for all who held benefices in the English Church. The 
Conventicle Act of 1664 rendered public worship, save in accordance 


4 


with the rites of the Establishment, almost impossible;* while 


the Five Mile Act of 1665° made it very difficult for a Puritan 
minister to earn a living. Under such hardships the differences 


between Presbyterians and Congregationalists became less and 


1 The Agreement of the Associated Ministers and Churches of the Counties of Cumber- 
land, and VVestmerland . . . London .. . 1656. Some extracts from this valuable tract, 
illustrative of the earlier union efforts between Congregationalists and Presbyterians, will be given 
at the close of this introduction. 

2 See the Brief History of Presbytery and Independency, London, 1691, p. 27; and Briggs, 
American Presbyterianism, New York, 1885, pp. 77, 78. 

3 Passed May 10, 1662, went into force August 24. ‘There was an excuse for such an act in 
the removals made by the Parliament and Commonwealth; but the cost to the Church of England 
itself was appalling. Compare the remarks of J. R. Greene, History of the English People, U1: 
346, 347. 

4 May 7, 1664. This law forbade any religious meeting of more than five persons outside of 
one family, save in conformity with the Establishment, the penalty being transportation on con- 
viction by a justice of the peace and without jury trial, on the third offense. 

5 Oct. 30, 1665. It forbade any non-conformist minister, who would not swear never to at- 
tempt any alteration in Church or State, to come within five miles of a corporate town or Parliament 
borough, or to teach school anywhere. 


UNION EFFORTS IN ENGLAND 443 


less. The national church, for which Presbyterians had longed, 
was evidently a dream impossible of realization. ‘The persistent 
efforts of many of their leaders for some kind of a compromise 
which would give them a place in a more comprehensive Establish- 
ment were without result. It was evident that, hunted as they ’ 
were, the most strenuous Presbyterians were in a position practi- 
cally similar to that of the Congregationalists. They could main- 
tain little more than isolated congregations, fortunate if able to 
secure advice and fellowship from other bodies similarly situated, 
but unable effectively to operate any elaborate system of church 
courts or ecclesiastical assembles. So it came about that, under 
the pressure of persecution, the remnants of the two bodies drew 
closer together; and after the first relief from their burdens came 
in the Declaration of Indulgence of 1673, by which Charles II. 
wished to favor his Catholic friends and obtain some degree of 
popularity with the Non-conformists, the leaders of the Congrega- 
tionalists and Presbyterians in the vicinity of London strove earn- 
estly for a union. Renewed persecution in 1682 ended their 
attempts for the time.’ 

With the success of the Revolution of 1688, effected by the 
joint action of Churchmen and Non-conformists, and the conse- 
quent passage of the Toleration Act in 1689,” the right of Dissen- 
ters to exist and to worship was legally recognized, though under 
somewhat onerous conditions; but neither Congregationalists nor 
Presbyterians could look for any wide extended acceptance of 
their polities. All the circumstances of their situations counseled 
the union of bodies so similar in beliefs and practical administra- 
tion. Much of that which had seemed important under the Com- 
monwealth and which had divided the two parties, was now clearly 
a matter of theoretic desirability rather than practically attainable. 
Accordingly, not long after the passage of the Toleration Act 





1 ‘*Some Ministers several Years ago, [were stirred up] to attempt something towards the 
Healing of the Differences between the Brethren of the Presdyterian and Congregational Per- 
suasion, in Matters of Discipline, but before they could bring their laudable Enterprize to any 
Ripeness, a stop was put to their Pious and Peaceable Undertaking, by the Persecution raised 
against them in the Year 1682.’ H77zst. of the Union between Presh. and Cong. Ministers, etc. 
London, 1698, p. 1. 

2 May 24, 1689. 


444 THE HEADS OF AGREEMENT 


representatives of the Presbyterian and Congregational ministers 
in the vicinity of London began to negotiate regarding an agree- 
ment.’ ~The movement was throughout, it would appear, purely 
ministerial, and one in which the churches, as distinguished from 
their pastors, had no share.’ 

On the Congregational side the leading representative was 
Matthew Mead,* the pastor of a large church at Stepney, then a 
suburb of London. Asa pronounced and earnest Non-conformist 
he had suffered persecution under Charles II. and James IL., and, 
while in no sense a theologian or an orator of the first rank, was a 
worthy and honored representative of the Congregational body. 

On the side of the Presbyterians the chief leader was John 
Howe,* famous for at least thirty-five years previous as the most 
eloquent of English preachers, and chaplain under Oliver and 
Richard Cromwell. Howe had been at that time a Congregationalist, 
but his kindly sympathy not only for Presbyterians but for the 
then proscribed clergymen of the abolished Establishment made 
him many friends among Episcopalians, and brought at the Restora- 
tion offers of profitable and distinguished preferment in the revived 
Church of England. But his conscience would not allow him to 
accept any of them, under the conditions of the repressive acts of 
the opening years of Charles II., and he was consequently the 
object of much persecution. On the first opportunity he had 
returned to London, and at the accession of William III. was looked 
upon as the foremost Dissenter in England. Howe’s Non-conform- 
ity, though conscientious and self-sacrificing, was broad. He hoped 
with increasing earnestness, as time went on, that an adjustment 
might be reached by which he and like-minded men might be 
admitted to a place in a modified Established Church.’ Nor did 





1‘* When all true Englishmen were freed from the dismal Fears of the return of Popery ... 
the Endeavours for a nearer Coalition between the Presbyterian and Congregational Brethren 
were Reviv’d; Select Persons were Deputed by both sides to treat upon Terms of Union, and their 
Debates issued in the Heads of Agreement.’’ “7st. of the Union, etc., p. 2. 

2 Compare Bacon, Discourse in Cont. Eccles. Hist. Conn., p. 36. 

3 Died Oct. 16, 1699, aged 70. He had assisted Rev. William Greenhill, had been pastor at 
Great Brickhill, Bucks, till compelled to go to Holland on account of supposed connection with the 
‘“ Rye-House Plot.’’ On returning he became one of the leading preachers in the vicinity of London. 

4 Among the many sources of information regarding Howe, I may distinguish the Dict. of 
National Biography, XXVIII: 85-88. He was now pastor of the Presbyterian church in Silver 
Street, London. 

5 Compare Stoughton, /7st. Religion in England, V, 310, 311. 


THE UNION OF 1690, 1691 Z45 


this hope seem wholly vain. Some of the more liberal of the pre- 
lates of the Church of England believed it feasible; one or two 
actually entered into correspondence with Howe regarding it. 
King William was known to be favorable to such an extension of 
the borders of the Established Church. Among the Dissenters 
these views of Howe found general sympathy in Presbyterian quar- 
ters, while the Congregationalists, disbelieving as they did in the 
desirability of a national church, almost unanimously rejected them. 
So it came about that, under his desire for an honorable union with 
the Church of England, Howe drifted from association with the 
Congregationalists, and, without apparently any radical change of 
view on the subject of church polity, was numbered with the 
Presbyterians. 

The strongest influence, however, in the accomplishment of 
the Union seems to have been that of Increase Mather,’ then serv- 
ing as the agent of the Massachusetts Colony in England. 

It seems not improbable that the first motion toward the Union 
came from the desires of the newly emancipated Puritans to per- 
petuate an educated ministry. At all events the first fruits of the 
new spirit of brotherliness appeared in the establishment, on July 
I, 1690, by benevolent Puritans, of a Fund to aid feeble churches 
and to educate candidates for the pastoral office. For the further- 
ance of this enterprise the donors invited many of the ministers 
about London to advise with them, and they, accepting the call, 
appointed seven Presbyterian pastors, among them John Howe, and 
seven Congregational ministers, including Matthew Mead, as Trus- 
tees of the new General Fund.? The union in benevolence thus 





1 Compare C. Mather, Blessed Unions, (1692) p. [iii]; Magnalia, 11: 272; Parentator, pp. 
147, 148. The lattersays: ‘‘ There was an Happy UNION accomplished between those Two Relig- 
ious Parties, which go under the Names of Presbyterian and Congregational . . . Dr. Annes- 
tey and Mr. Vincent and others, often Declared, That this Uzzon would never have been Effected, 
if Mr. Mather had not been among them; and they often therefore Blessed GOD, for bringing him 
to England, and keeping him there. He had Thanks from the Couztry, as well as the C7ty on 
that Account: And among the rest, a General Assembly of Ministers in Devon, sent up to London 
this Instrument. 

‘ Juntj 23. 1691. Agreed, That the Reverend Mr. John Flavel, Moderator of this Assembly 
send unto the Reverend Mr. Matthew Mead, Mr. John How, and Mr. /ncrease Mather, and give 
Them, and such Others as have been Eminently Instrumental in Promoting the Uzzoz, the Thanks 
of this Assembly, for the great Pains they have taken therein.’”’ 

2 Extracts from the documents and the names of the Trustees will be found in Briggs, A mer- 


ican Presbyterianism, Appendix, pp. lvi-lix. 


440 THE HEADS OF AGREEMENT 


begun had doubtless a powerful effect in paving the way for fellow- 
ship in all church relationship. 

Under the guidance of Mead, Howe, and Mather, the negotia- 
tions for full fellowship between the two parties made more rapid 
and favorable progress than at any earlier time in their history, 
Agreement was reached with substantial unanimity;* and, on April 
6, 1691, the Union was formally declared at a joint meeting of the 
ministers of both parties settled in the vicinity of London, and 
celebrated by a sermon from Matthew Mead.* ‘The movement 
thus begun at London spread rapidly to the country. Rev. John 
Flavel journeyed to Exeter with the express purpose of introducing 
the Union into Devonshire and Cornwall, and died just as he had 
accomplisned his task. Similar associations were formed in 
Hampshire, Norfolk, Nottinghamshire, and the West Riding of 
Yorkshire.* For a time Presbyterian and Congregational ministers 
in England seemed really one body. 

The document on which the Union was based, like similar com- 
promises generally, minimizes as far as possible the distinguishing 
features of both systems. Ina true sense it is open to the keen 
criticism of one of its contemporary Congregational opponents, 
that; > 


‘‘it was no more than a Verbal Composition, or a number of Articles zzdustriously 
and designedly framed with great Amdiguzty, that Persons retaining their different 
Sentiments about the same Things, might yet seem to Unite.” 


Part of this vagueness is doubtless due to the fact that the 
Heads of Agreement did not represent the theories of the signers 
regarding church government in their entirety. The agreement 
was not intended to be a complete treatise on ecclesiastical polity, 
but simply a treaty in accordance with which two bodies of men of 
somewhat divergent views might work together in harmony. But 
in so far as the document is positive, it leans in the direction of 
Congregationalism., It is, as Dr. Bacon affirmed, ‘in fact, though 





1‘* The Congregational Brethren who refused to come into the Union were but few, and are 
said to be no more then three.””? H7st. of the Union, etc., p. 5. 

2 Two Sticks made one, etc. See ante, p. 440. 

3 Palmer’s abridgement of Calamy, Nonconformist’s Memorial, London, 1775, 1: 355. 

4 Stoughton, H7st. of Religion in England, V: 294, 295. 

5 Hist. of the Union, etc., p. 3. 


THE “ HEADS”? CONGREGATIONAL 447 


not in name, a Congregational platform,’ *—and one fairly ac- 
cordant with the Cambridge Platform. That this was the case 
was natural. Of the three men most instrumental in its composi- 
tion, two were Congregationalists, while the third, though at the 
time affliated with the Presbyterians, was a Congregationalist by 
early training, and had joined his new associates more from approval 
of their general attitude toward possible union with the Church of 
England than from preference for the more permanent features of 
Presbyterianism. Then, too, the Heads of Agreement could not 
but recognize the existence of some divergence of views even in 
the Union, and the toleration of such divergence of necessity signi- 
fied that some degree of liberty of judgment and action —that is 
to say, some measure of Congregational self-government — was 
allowed to the congregations whose ministers composed the asso- 
ciation.” The Heads of Agreement contain no implication that 
church courts, synods, or general assemblies are desirable. It is 
indeed clearly affirmed that in cases affecting the welfare of the 
churches, advice is to be sought of the ministers of other churches. 
To be thoroughly Congregational, it should have included the 
brethren of other churches as well as their ministers. But the 
judgment thus invoked is no judicial sentence; it is no further 
binding than the results of a New England council.* Churches are 
defined, in a sense quite acceptable to Congregationalists, as “ par- 
ticular Societies of Visible Saints” (or as we should now say, pro- 
fessedly regenerate persons,) “who under Christ their Head, are 
statedly joined together for ordinary Communion with one another, 
in all the Ordinances of Christ.” * And, furthermore, it is affirmed 
that these churches enjoy their right to the ordinances “ upon their 
mutual declared consent and agreement Zo walk together therein 
according to Gospel Rule’’*—an agreement which is a true covenant, 
though it may vary in “expliciteness.”’ These churches have, 
severally, the “ Right to chuse their own Officers ” and to administer 


* and in such administration the consent at least 


their own affairs; 
1 Contr. Eccles. Hist. Conn., p. 36. 2 Compare /ézd. 
3 Heads of Agreement, § VI. SBT da. Slee, 
DLOZA 4B Lit As % Med.5$ 1: 6, 


448 THE HEADS OF AGREEMENT 


of the brethren is to be obtained.’ No church is subordinate to 
any other and no “ Officer, or Officers, shall exercise any Power, or 
have any Supertority over any other Church, or their Officers.”* In 
calling a pastor churches are, ordinarily, to consult the neighboring 
ministers, and these ministers are, usually, to unite with the preach- 
ing officers of the church (in case such exist) in the candidate’s 
ordination,.® A wise provision declared that those who proposed to 
enter the Gospel ministry ought to be examined as to their “ Gifts 
and fitness”’ by able pastors of churches.* 

The leading features of the Heads of Agreement are thus 
essentially Congregational. They differ, indeed, on some points 
from the usages of the founders of New England, but save in their 
silence respecting the presence of representatives of the brethren 
in councils, they fairly set forth the practices of the third genera- 
tion on New England soil; and, as such, partly justify the extrava- 
gant statement of Cotton Mather, that “’tis not possible 
to give a truer description of our [New England] ‘ecclesiastical 
constitution.’”*® Even the uncertainty of the Heads of Agreement 
regarding the Ruling Eldership not unfairly represents the state 
of the New England mind at the close of the seventeenth century. 

It is as a document of importance in New England church 
history, rather than in the story of English Congregationalism, 
that the Heads of Agreement have special value. Prepared, like 
the Savoy Confession, by Englishmen for English use (if we except 
the agency of Increase Mather), like that symbol, they have been 
chiefly employed in New England. 

That they were so used was the natural result of the instru- 
mentality of the one American, Increase Mather, who had a share 
in the formation of the Union, His son Cotton, on receipt of a 
copy, at once preached on them to his Boston congregation, and 
the two laudatory sermons which he then delivered, together with 
the text of the Heads of Agreement, were printed and circulated 
about New England in 1692.° When, ten years later, the greatest 





RAR ei CMMI ey 2 Jbid., 81V; 2, 
8 Jézd., § II. 4 Jbid., § 11: 7. 
5 Magnalia, I1: 272, & Blessed Unions, etc., Boston, 692. 


THEIR USE IN NEW ENGLAND 449 


historical work that the first century of American Christianity pro- 
duced, the A/agnalia, was given to the world, the Heads of Agree- 
ment were given an honored place side by side with the New Eng- 
land symbols and declared to be the best possible exposition of 
existent Congregationalism. The Mathers seem to have been 
proud of their work and to have furthered the knowledge of it and 
esteem for it as far as possible. So it came about that when the 
Saybrook Synod met in 1708 to frame an ecclesiastical constitu- 
tion for Connecticut, the “eads of Agreement were widely known 
in New England, and must have been thought by many to be the 
most modern and popular presentation of Congregationalism. 
They served well to set forth the principles which the Saybrook 
Synod wished to enunciate, and though incomplete without the 
addition of the fifteen Articles establishing Connecticut’s peculiar 
consociational and associational system, the Heads of Agreement 
sweetened those Articles, softened their interpretation, and made 
them palatable to many who would otherwise have refused them. 
Approved with the rest of the Saybrook result by the General 
Court of the colony in October, 1708,’ they continued a part of the 
legal basis of the Connecticut churches till 1784, when the Say- 
brook system was quietly omitted from the statutes.” But they 
remain as one of the factors which have shaped Connecticut 
Congregationalism. 

The fate of this document in the land of its origin was curi- 
ously unlike that which characterized it in America. In England 
the Heads of Agreement proved ephemeral enough. Like the 
Savoy Confession they were soon forgotten; but for a different 
reason. ‘The Union of which they were to be the foundation fell 
apart in the first strain of theologic controversy, and before the 
decade which saw their birth had closed Presbyterians and Con- 
gregationalists in the vicinity of London were as far apart as ever. 
The circumstances of this melancholy breach were closely con- 
nected with a doctrinal contest which convulsed all the Non-con- 
formist bodies of England, and even involved some representatives 


1 Conn. Records, V., 87. 
2 Dr. L, Bacon, in Contr. Eccles. Hist. Conn., p. 62. 


450 THE HEADS OF AGREEMENT 


of the Establishment.’ Dr. Tobias Crisp had been an eminent 
clergyman under Charles I., and had long served as rector of 
Brinkworth, Wiltshire. His theory of imputation was so strenuous 
as to lead, so his opponents thought, to Antinomian results. He 
held, it would appear, that our Lord so took upon himself human 
sin as to become personally as sinful as man, and, on the other 
hand, all who believe so receive Christ’s righteousness here as to 
become as holy as Christ. Crisp died in 1643, and the arguments 
which were to prove the bombshell in the united camp of Presby- 
terians and Congregationalists remained for nearly fifty years for 
the most part unpublished. But just about the time of the Union 
they were brought to light by Crisp’s son, and printed with a note 
signed by several prominent Non-conformist ministers attesting 
the genuineness of the manuscript.” The views of Dr. Crisp were 
so extreme that the work was at once answered by Dr. Daniel 
Williams,* one of the chief Presbyterians of London, a preacher of 
power, a moderate Calvinist, and the founder of the great Non-con- 
formist library, which is now one of the treasure-houses of the 
history of Puritanism. Imitating the example of the younger 


1 Some general facts of value regarding the Crispian dispute may be found in Stoughton, 
flistorv of Religion in England, V: 296-300. Its connection with the Union between Presby- 
terians and Congregationalists is given in the anonymous H/7story of the Union . . . And The 
Causes of The Breach of it, to which frequent reference has been made. While the immediate 
cause of the rupture of the Union was the Crispian dispute, there were evidences of friction from 
the first between Presbyterians and Congregationalists. Many leading Presbyterians at the time, 
and notably John Howe, hoped for some readjustment of the Establishment by which a portion at 
least of the Dissenters could be comprehended. The Congregationalists did not generally favor the 
idea. The author of the Hist. of the Union says (pp. 3-5): *‘ They [Congregationalists] could not 
but observe how some of the Prime Promoters of this Union were such as in the time of Persecution 
had by their Compliance deserted the Cause of the Vonz-conformists [Howe had submitted to the 
Five Mile Act in 1665] . . . The Chief Leaders in the Union begin now to speak freely of this 
Business, and declare to this Purpose: 7hat 7t was the tntendment of the Union to comprehend 
and include such as were for Sacramental Communion with the Church of England. This is 
that which is disallowed generally by the Congregational Brethren. . . . They took Notice 
how some Aspiring Tempers of the Preséyterzan Party begin to drive at /urzsdiction over other 
Churches. . . . They perceiv’d that there was a Design to discountenance the Congregational 
Churches up and down the Nation. They thought the Instances of Sandwich and Marlborough 
amounted to a Presumptive Evidence of this.’’ On the other hand, the Presbyterians were offended 
that the Congregationalists held separate meetings “‘in Reference to things belonging to Congrega- 
tional Churches, which were not proper and adviseable to be debated in Conjunction with the 
Presbyterian Ministers.” (Ibid., p. 6.) 

2 | have not seen this book, but I suppose it to be Chrzst Made Sin, London, 1691. 

3 In Gospel Truth Stated and Vindicated, London, 1692. This celebrated divine at his 
death, Jan. 16. 1716, left part of a considerable property to maintain his library for public use. 
This became the nucleus of the library once known, from its street location in London, as the 
** Red-Cross Library,’’ but now removed to Grafton street and bearing the name of its founder. 


BREACH OF THE UNION 451 


Crisp, Williams procured the commendatory signatures of sixteen 
of the most prominent Presbyterian ministers of the day, a num- 
ber which was increased on the publication of a second edition of 
his work to forty-nine, thus including more than half the Presby- 
terians in the Union.’ The Congregationalists seem to have been 
no more pleased with the supposed Antinomianism of Dr. Crisp 
than the Presbyterians; but Dr. Williams was one of the Presby- 
terians who had seemed to them most filled, as the historian of 
the quarrel puts it, with “a prejudiced Spirit against the Govern- 
ment of the Congregational Churches, and the Order wherein they 
walk.”’? Anything from his pen must of course be suspicious, and 
as the Congregationalists read his reply to Crisp it appeared to 
them that Williams had fallen into errors no less serious than 
those he refuted, had voided the atonement of significance, and 
had attacked the fundamental doctrines of Protestantism gen- 
erally. Thus it came about'that, while a majority of the Presby- 
terians in the new Union supported Williams, a considerable num- 
ber of Congregationalists opposed, and six of the latter joined in 


3 


a “Paper of Exceptions’”’* which Rev. Isaac Chauncy‘ of London 





1“ The Congregational Brethren were offended at several Managements in the Union, but 
never Deserted it till ¢4at happened which forc’d them at last to leave it. /¢ was this: Mr. 
Daniel Williams Published a Book against Dr. Crzsf’s Opinions, and with the Confutation of the 
Doctor’s Opinions, he did interweave several Notions of his own, which have been reckoned con- 
trary to the Received and Approved Doctrine of the Reformed Churches. . . . This Book 
could not but give offence . . . yet it would have been pass’d by . . . if it had not been 
for the Attestation given to it by several Presbyterian Ministers of the Greatest Figure. - 
There were Sixteen concerned in the First Testimonial, and . . . in the Re-Printing of the 
Book the List of Names was increased from Sixteen to Forty Nine of the Union, which was by far 
the Majority of the Presbyterian Party, that were in it. It occasioned much grief of Heart to the 
Congregational Brethren.’ Hist. of the Union, etc., pp. 6, 7. 

2 Hist. of the Union, p. 3. 

3 They were Rev. Messrs. George Griffith, Thomas Cole, Nathanael Mather, Isaac Chauncy, 
Robert Trail, and Richard Taylor. The whole of the brief paper may be found in Chauncy’s 
Neomtanisn Unmask'd: or, the Ancient Gospel Pleaded, Against the Other, called a New 
Law or Gospel, London, 1692-3, Part III, pp. 96, 97. The exceptions are wholly doctrinal, and are 
chiefly as follows: ‘‘2. Under a colour of opposing some old Azt7xomzan Errors . . . he 
[Daniel Williams] falls in with them in their main Principle of vacating the Sanction of the moral 
Law. . . . 3. That to supply the room of the moral Law, vacated by him, he turns the Gospel 
into a new Law, in keeping of which we shall be justified for the sake of Christ’s Righteousness, 
whereby he boldly strikes both at Law and Gospel, . . . making Qualifications and Acts of 
ours, a disposing, subordinate Righteousness, whereby we become capable of being justified by 
Christ’s Righteousness. . . . 5. He teacheth, That the Righteousness of Christ is imputed only 
as to Effects, with a Purchase of a conditional Grant, wzz. this Proposition, He that Selieveth shall 
be saved . . . Contrary to the Doctrine of Imputation and Redemption.” 

4 Eldest son of Pres. Charles Chauncy of Harvard, born in 1632, graduated at Harvard in 
1651 and went to England, where he resided till his death, Feb. 28, 1712. At this time he was min- 


452 THE HEADS OF AGREEMENT 


laid before the meeting of the United Ministers, October 17, 1692, 
and accompanied by a heated speech in which he gave “the Rea- 
sons why he look’d upon the Union to be broken, and Perverted 
from its right End, and therefore would be no longer a Member of 
it.’*? The Union as a whole was not as hot-headed as Mr. Chauncy; 
and as a means of re-establishing peace, appointed a non-partisan 
committee of five or six of their number who had never subscribed 
Williams’s publication’ to meet with “ Five of the Noted Subscribers 
to it,”’* and with the five protesting signers of the “ Paper of Ex- 
ceptions ” who still remained members of the Union after Chauncy’s 
withdrawal. But, as is frequent in such cases, ‘Many Meetings 
were held to little or no purpose,’”’* and negotiations dragged on 
till December, 1694, when “The Odjectors were now Convinced, 
That they had Complain’d of Mr. W7d/iams’s Errors, to Men who 
would give them no Reason to think they were /mpartia/, and 
from this time [the] Congregational Brethren grew weary of the 
Meeting of the Ministers at ZLz¢tle St. Hellens, [the meeting-place 
of the Union,] and did in a manner wholly withdraw from it.”°® 
At about the same time the Presbyterian and Congregational trus- 
tees of the General Fund fell apart into separate boards.® One 
more fruitless effort for adjustment was made in March, 1696;’ but 
the breach in the London Union of Congregationalists and Pres- 
byterians was irreparable. How far the country associations which 
had been formed on the basis of the Heads of Agreement were 
affected is difficult to say, but the object for which the Heads of 
Agreement were framed, viz.: the Union of Presbyterians and Con- 
gregationalists in and about London, had utterly failed. 





ister of a church in London; and then, or a little later, divinity tutor in the Dissenter’s Academy in 
London, An account of him and a list of his writings is given in Sibley, Grad. ef Harvard, 1: 
302-307. 

1 Hist. of the Union, pp. 7, 8. 

2 Jbid., p. 12. They were Rev. Messrs. Matthew Mead, Sam. Annestey, Edward Veale, 
John James, and Stephen Lobb. ‘‘ Mr. [Matthew] Barker was also appointed to be one, but seldom 
met with them.”’ 

3 /éid. Rev. Messrs. John Howe, Geo. Hammond, Vincent Alsop, Richard Mayo, and Sam. 
Slater. 

4 [b7d.., Ds as 5 Jbid., p. 16. 

6 See Briggs, American Presbyterianism, Appendix, p. lviii. The last joint meeting re- 
corded was June 26, 1693; the first separate meeting of the Presbyterians was Feb. 5, 1695. 

° Hist. of the Union, etc., pp. 23-25. 


THE AGREEMENT OF 1656 453 


UNION EFFORTS, 1656, 1691 


A. EXTRACTS FROM THE AGREEMENT OF 1656 

The | Agreement | of the | Assoctated Ministers & Churches | of 
the | Counties | of | Cumberland, | And | VVestmerland: |. . London 
1650. 

[3] . . . In order to the carrying on of this great work [of 
union], wee lay down and assent unto these general rules, as the 
Basis and Foundation which must support and bear up our follow- 
ing Agreement. 

I Hat in the exercise of Discipline, it is not onely the most 

safe course, but also most conducing to brotherly union 
and satisfaction, That particular Churches carry on as much of 
their work with joynt and mutual assistance, as they can with con- 
veniency and edification, and as little as may be in their actings, to 
stand distinctly by themselves, and apart from each other. 

2. That in matters of Church Discipline, those things which 
belong onely ad melius esse + ({ Things not essential), ought to be 
laid aside, both in respect of publication and practice, rather then 
that the Churches peace should be hindered. 

3. That where different principles lead to the same practice, 
wee may joyn together in that practice, reserving to each of us our 
own principles. 

4. That when we can neither agree in principle, nor in prac- 
tice, we are to bear with one another’s differences, that are of a 
less and disputable nature, vvithout making them a ground of 
division amongt us. 

[4] Yet notwithstanding,’ we do not hereby binde up our 
selves from endeavouring to inform one another in those things 
wherein we differ, so that it be done with a spirit of love and meek- 
ness, and vvith resolutions to continue our brotherly amity and 
association, though in those particulars our differences should re- 
main uncomposed. 

Upon these grounds we agree as followetn. 


[They then promise to preach faithfully, catechise, reprove prevalent sins, ask 
the consent of their people to a brief confession of faith and covenant (the two docu- 
ments are given, and are similar to those used in New England), insist on ‘‘ 
able conversation’ and acquaintance with the main doctrines of religion from all who 
come to the Supper, yet they] 


unblame- 


[16] agree, not to press a declaration of the time and manner 
of the work of grace upon the people, as a necessary proof of their 
actual present right to the Lords Supper, nor to exclude persons 
meerly for want of that, yet will we accept it, if any will be pleased 
to offer it freely . . . [17] Whena Minister is to be ordained 


1 Misprinted wuotithstanding. 


454 THE HEADS OF AGREEMENT 


unto a congregation, we agree, That godly and able mini-[ 18] sters 
of neighbor congregations, be called to be employed in the exam- 
ination and trial of the fitness of the party to be set apart to that 
weighty Office, and in the act of Ordination. 

Though we differ about the first subject of the power of the 
Keys,’ yet forasmuch as we all agree, That the affairs of the Church 
are to be managed by the Officers thereof, therefore we conclude 
that the examination and determination of things in cases of ad- 
mission and rejections, and other church acts, shall be permitted 
by the Officers; yet so that the people have notice of what they 
resolve and conclude upon, in matters of moment, that in case any 
thing be done against which the people may (upon probable grounds 
at least) object. from the word of God, it may either be forborne, 
or their satisfaction endeavoured. 

[19] Albeit we differ as ta the power of associated churches 
over particular congregations; yet, we agree that it is not only 
lawful and useful, but in many cases necessary, that several 
churches should hold communion and correspondency together; 
and to that end we resolve to associate our selves, & to keep 
frequent meetings for mutual advice and help, as occasion shall 
require. 

VVe take our selves and our churches bound to follow what- 
soever advice, direction or reproof, (being agreeable to the word) 
any of us shall receive from the Brethren in association with us. 

[20] For the better carrying on of our intended association, 
we Sage to observe these following rules. 

We judge it convenient to divide our selves into three asso- 
ae (vzz.) at Carlile, at Penrith, and Cockermouth, and shall 
meet once a Moneth, or more or less, as occasion shall require, and 
the major part of the association shall think fit. 

2. At these meetings we shall hear and determine things of 
common concernment, endeavour to resolve doubts, compose dif- 
ferences, consider the justness & weight of the grounds and reasons 
of Ministers removals from any place, when such cases shall fall 
out, consult and advise about spe-[21]| cial emmergencies that may 
happen to our Ministry or congregations in particular. 


[They also agree that the three associations are ‘‘sometimes to meet all 
together.’’| 


1 J, e., as to the seat of authority in church administration, 


THE: PREFACE TO THE HEADS 455 


B. THE HEADS OF AGREEMENT, 1691 

Heads of Agreement | Assented to by the | United Ministers | 
In and about Lonpon: | Formerly called | PRESBYTERIAN 
| anv | CONGREGATIONAL. | —— | Licensed and Ene 
tred according to Order. LOM LON: Iperintedsbyuks Ro for, 
Tho. Cockerill, at the Zhree Legs, | and FJobn Dunton at the Laven, 
in the | Poultrey. MDCXCI. 








[ii blank] THE 
[iti] PREFACE to the READER. 


Ndeavours for an Agreement among Christians, will be grievous to 
E none who desire the flourtshing State of Christianity it self. 
The Success of these Attempts among us, must be ascribed to a 
Presence of God so signal, as not to be concealed ; and seems a hopeful 
Pledg of further Blessings. 

“The favour of our “Rulers in the present Established Liberty, we 
most thankfully acknowledg ; and to Them we are studious to approve 
our selves in the whole of this Affair. Therefore we Declare against 
intermedling with the National Church-form: Lmposing these Terms 
of Agreement on others, ts disclaimed: All pretence to Coercive Power, 
7s as unsuttable to our Principles, as to our Circumstances: Lxcom- 
munication it self, in our respective Churches, being no other [iv| than 
a declaring such scandalous Members as are trreclaimable, to be incapa- 
ble of Communion with us in things peculiar to Visible Believers: And 
in all, we expresly determine our purpose, to the maintaining of Har- 
mony and Love among our selves, and preventing the tnconventences 
which humane weakness may expose to in our use of this Liberty. 

The general concurrence of Ministers and People in this City, and 
the great disposition thereto in other places, persuade us, this happy Work 
7s undertaken in a season designed for such Divine influence, as will 
overcome all tmpediments to Peace, and convince of that Agreement 
which has been always among us in a good degree, tho neither to our 
selves nor others so evident, as “hereby it ts now acknowledged. 

LVveed there any A reuments to recommend this Union? Is not this 
what we all have prayed for, and Providence by the directest tndications 
hath been long calling and disposing us to? can either Zeal for God, or 
prudent |v| regards to our selves remissly suggest tt, seeing the Blessings 
thereof are so important, and when it’s become in so many respects even 
absolutely necessary; especially as tt may conduce to the preservation of the 
Protestant Religion, and the Kingdoms Weal; a subserviency whereto, 


456 THE HEADS OF AGREEMENT 


shall always govern our United Abilities, with the same disposition to a 
concurence with all others who are duly concerned for those National 
Blessings. 

As these considerations render this Agre-ment desirable, so they 
equally urge a watchful care against all attempts of Satan to dissolve 
it, or frustrate the good effects thereof so mantfestly destructive to his 
Kingdom. Therefore it’s tncumbent on us, to forbear condemning and 
disputing those different sentiments and practices we have expresly 
allowed for: To reduce all distinguishing Names, to that of United 
Brethren: Zo admit no uncharttable jealoustes, or censorious speeches ; 
much less any debates whether Party seems most favour-|viled by this 
Agreement. Such carnal regards are of small moment with us, who 
herein have used words less accurate, that netther side might tn their 
various conceptions about lesser matters be contradicted, when in all sub- 
stantials we are fully of one mind; and from this time hope more per- 
fectly to rejoice in the Honour, Gifts, and Success of each other, as our 
common good. 

That we as United, may contribute our utmost to the great concern- 
ments of our Redeemer, tts mutually resolved, we will assist each other 
with our Labours, and meet and consult, without the least shadow of 
separate or distinct Parties :* Whence we joyfully expect great Improve- 
ments in Light and Love, through the more abundant supplies of the 
Spirit; being well assured we herein serve that Prince of Peace, of 
the increase of whose Government and Peace, there shall be no 
end, 


This Agreement is already assented to by above Fourscore Ministers, and the 
Preface approved of. 


(1) 
HEADS of AGREEMENT 
Assented to by the 
United Ministers, &c. 





The following Heads of AGREEMENT have been Resolved 
upon, by the UNITED Ministers in and about London, formerly called 
Presbyterian avd Congregational; not asa Measure for any National 


1 In spite of this positive statement and the declaration below that the Preface was ‘‘ap- 
proved of,”’ the Congregationalists, at least, seem to have intended to preserve their separate identity 
even under the Union; a point on which, as they were much the smaller party, they were more 
sensitive than the Presbyterians. The author of the Y7story of the Union, etc., says (p. 6): ‘‘ The 
Congregational Brethren were troubled [by some actions of the Presbyterians], yet bearing with 
Patience what they could not redress, they kept their Station, and albeit they had some Meetings 
among themselves in Reference to things belonging to Congregational Churches, which were not 
proper and adviseable to be debated in Conjunction with the Presbyterian Ministers, yet they did 
not in the least judge themselves hereby to be guilty of making any Infractions upon the Union, 
because the Congregational Brethren do to this Day aver, That they never consented to the Pre- 
face that is set before the Heads of Agreement, as any part of the Articles of the Union.”’ 


TEXT. .OF THE HEADS 457 


Constitution, dut for the Preservation of Order tn our Congregations, 
that cannot come up to the Common Rule by Law Established. 


I, Of CHURCHES and CHURCH-MEMBERS. 


r, \ N JE Acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ to have One Catho- 

lick Church, or Kingdom, comprehending all that are 
united to Him, whether in Heaven or Larth. And do conceive the 
[2] whole multitude of w7szble Believers, and their Infant-Seed (com- 
monly called the Catholick Visible Church) to belong to Christ's 
Spiritual Kingdom in this world: But for the notion of a Catholick 
Visible Church here, as it signifies its having been collected into 
any formed Society, under a Visible human* Head on Earth, 
whether ove Person singly, or many collectively, We, with the rest 
of Protestants, unanimously disclaim it.’ 

2. We agree, That particular Societies of Visible Saints, who 
under Christ their Head, are statedly joined together for ordinary 
Communion with one another, in all the Ordinances of Christ, are 
particular Churches, and are to be owned by each other, as Insti- 
tuted Churches of Christ, tho differing in apprehensions and practice 
in some lesser things. 

3. That none shall be admitted as Members, in order to Com- 
munion in all [3] the special Ordinances of the Gospel, but such 
persons as are knowing and sound in the fundamental Doctrines * 
of the Christian Religion, without Scandal in their Lives; and toa 
Judgment regulated by the Word of God, are persons of visible 
Godliness * and Honesty; credibly professing cordial subjection to 
Jesus Christ. 

4. A competent Number of such wzszble Saints, (as before 
described) do become the capable Subjects of stated Communion 
in all the spectal Ordinances of Christ, upon their mutual declared 
consent and agreement fo walk together therein according to Gospel 
Rule. In which declaration, different degrees of Axpliciteness, shall 
no way hinder such Churches from owning each other, as /ustetuted 
Churches. 

5. Tho Parochial Bounds be not of Divine Right, yet for com- 
mon Edification, the Members of a particular Church [4] ought (as 
much as conveniently may be) to live near one another. 

6. That each particular Church hath Right to chuse® their own 
Officers; and being furnished with such as are duly qualified and 


1 Saybrook reads common. : 
2 The Saybrook Synod added proof-texts to each paragraph of the Heads of Agreement, as 
well as to the Confession of 1680. 
3 Saybrook reads Doctrzne. 4 Saybrook reads Hodzness. 5 Saybrook reads use, 
30 


458 THE HEADS OF AGREEMENT 


ordained according to the Gospel Rule, hath Authority from Christ 
for exercising. Government, and of enjoying all the Ordinances of 
Worship within it self. 

7. In the Administration of Church Power, it belongs to the 
Pastors and other Elders of every particular Church (if such there 
be)’ to Rule and Govern: and to the Brotherhood to Consent, accord- 
ing to the Rule of the Gospel. 

8. That all Professors as before described, are bound in duty, 
as they have opportunity, to join themselves as fixed Members of 
some particular Church; their thus joining, being part of their 
professed subjection to the Gospel of Christ, [5] and an instituted 
means of their Establishment and Edification; whereby they are 
under the Pastoral Care, and in case of scandalous or offensive walk- 
ing, may be Authoritatively Admonished or Censured for their 
recovery, and’® for vindication of the 7Zvuth, and the Church 
professing it. 

9. That a vistble Professor thus joined to a particular Church, 
ought to continue stedfastly with the said Church; and not forsake 
the Ministry and Ordinances there dispensed, without an orderly 
seeking a recommendation unto another Church. Which ought to 
be given, when the case of the person apparently requires it. 


II, Of the Ministry, 


1, WE agree, That the JZznzsterial Office is instituted by Jesus 
Christ, for the Gathering, Guiding, Edifying, and Governing of his 
Church; and to continue to the end of the world. 

[6] 2. They who are called to this Office, ought to be endued 
with competent Learning, and Mintstertal Gifts, as also with the 
Grace of God, sound in Judgment, not Novices in the Faith and 
Knowledg of the Gospel; without scandal, of holy Conversation, 
and such as devote themselves to the Work and Service thereof. 

3. That ordinarily none shall be Ordained to the work of this 
Ministry, but such as are cal/ed and chosen thereunto by a particular 
Church. 

4. That in so great and weighty a matter as the calling and 
chusing a Pastor, we judg it ordinarily requisite, That every such 
Church consult and advise with the Pastors of Neighbouring 
Congregations. . 

5. That after such Advice the Person consulted about, being 
chosen by the Brotherhood of that particular Church over [7] 


1 Saybrook omits ( ) signs. 2 Saybrook omits azd. 


TEXT OF THE HEADS 459 


which he is to be set, and he accepting, be duly ordained, and set 
apart to his Office over them; wherein ’tis ordinarily requisite, 
That the Pastors of Neighbouring Congregations concur with the 
Preaching-£lder, or Elders, if such there be. 

6. That whereas such Ordination is only intended for such as 
never before had been ordained to the A/znzstertal Office; If any 
judge, that in the case also of the removal of one formerly 
Ordained, to a new Station or Pastoral Charge, there ought to be 
a like Solemn recommending him and his Labours éo the Grace and 
Blessing of God; no different Sentiments or Practice herein, shall 
be any occasion of Contention or Breach of Communion among us. 

7. It is expedient, that they who enter on the work of Preach- 
ing the Gospel, be not only qualified for’ Communion of Saints; but 
also that, except in cases extraordinary, they give proof of their 
Gifts and fitness [8| for the sazd work, unto the Pastors of Churches, 
of known abilities to discern and judge of their gualifications ; That 
they may be sent forth with Solemn Approbation and Prayer; which 
we judge needful, that no doubt may remain concerning their being 
Called to* the work; and for preventing (as much as in us lieth) 
Lgnorant and rash Intruders. 


III. Of CENsuRES, 


1, As it cannot be avoided, but that in the Purest Churches 
on Earth, there will sometimes Offences and Scandals arise by 
reason of Hypocrisie and prevailing corruption ; so Christ hath made 
it the Duty of every Church, to reform it self by Sperttual Reme- 
dies, appointed by him to be applied in all such cases; wz. Admont- 
tion, and Excommunication. 

2. Admonition, being the rebuking of an Offending Member in 
order to convicti-[g]on, is in case of private offences to be performed 
according to the Rule in AZaz¢. 18. v. 15, 16, 17. and in case of Pud- 
lick offences, openly before the Church, as the Honour of the Gospel, 
and nature of the Scandal shall require: And if either of the Admo- 
nitions take place for the recovery of the fallen Person, all further 
proceedings in a way of censure, are thereon to cease, and satisfac- 
tion to be declared accordingly. 

3. When all due means are used, according to the Order of the 
Gospel, for the restoring an offending and scandalous Brother; and 
he notwithstanding remains Impenitent, the Censure of Laxcommu- 
nication is to be proceeded unto; Wherein the Pastor and other 


1 Saybrook inserts ¢he. 2 Saybrook reads uxfo, 


460 THE HEADS OF AGREEMENT 


Elders (if there be such) are to lead, and go before the Church; 
and the Brotherhood to give their consent, in a way of obedience 
unto Christ, and unto’ the “7ders, as over them in the Lord. 

4. It may sometimes come to pass, [10] that a Church-Member, 
not otherwise Scandalous, may sznzfully withdraw, and divide him- 
self from the Communion of the Church to which he belongeth: In 
which case, when all due means for the reducing him, prove ineffect- 
ual, he having thereby cut himself off from that Churches Commun- 
ton; the Church may justly esteem and declare it self discharged 
of any further inspection over him. 


IV. Of COMMUNION of CHURCHES. 


1. WE Agree, that Particular Churches ought not to walk so 
distinct and separate from each other, as not to have care and 
tenderness towards one another. But their Pastors ought to have 
frequent meetings together, that by mutual Advice, Support, En- 
couragement, and Brotherly intercourse, they may strengthen the 
hearts and hands of each other in the ways of the Lord. 

[11] 2. That none of ovr particular Churches shall be sabordt- 
nate to one another; each being endued with eguality of Power 
from Jesus Christ. And that none of the said particular Churches, 
their Officer, or Officers, shall exercise any Power, or have any 
Superiority over any other Church, or their Officers. 

3. That known Members of particular Churches, constituted 
as aforesaid, may have occasional Communion with one another in 
the Ordinances of the Gospel, viz. the Word, Prayer, Sacraments, 
Singing® Psalms, dispensed according to the mind of Christ: Un- 
less that Church, with which they desire Communion, hath any 
just exception against them. 

4. That we ought not to admit any one to be a Member of 
our respective Congregations, that hath joined himself to another, 
without endeavours of mutual Satisfaction of the Congregations* 
concerned. 

[12] 5. That ove Church ought not to blame the Proceedings 
of another, until it hath heard what that Church charged, its Elders, 
or Messengers, can say in vindication of themselves from any 
charge of zrregular or injurious Proceedings. 

6. That we are most willing and ready to give an account of 
our Church Proceedings to each other, when desired; for prevent- 
ing or removing any offences that may arise among us. Likewise 
we shall be ready to give the right hand of fellowship, and walk 
together according to the Gospel Rules of Communion of Churches. 





1 Saybrook reads fo. 3 Saybrook inserts of 2 Saybrook reads Congregation. 


TEXT OF THE HEADS 401 


V. Of Deacons aud RULING ELDERS. 


WE agree, The Office of a Deacon is of Divine Appointment, 
and that it belongs to their Office to receive, lay out, and distribute 
the Churches Stock to its proper uses, by the direction of the Paséor, 
and Brethren if need be. And [13] whereas divers are of opinion, 
That there is also the Office of Ruling Elders, who labour not in 
word and doctrine; and others think otherwise; We agree, That 
this difference make no breach among us. 


VI. Of Occastonal MEETINGS’ of Ministers, &c. 


1. WE agree, That in order to concord, and in any other wezghty 
and afficult cases, it is needful, and according to the mznd of 
Christ, that the Ministers of? several Churches be consulted and 
advised with about such matters. 

2. That such Meetings may consist of smaller or greater Num- 
bers, as the matter shall require. 

3. That particular Churches, their respective “7ders, and JZem- 
bers, ought to have a reverential regard to their judgment so 
given, and not dissent therefrom, without apparent grounds from 
the word of God. 


[14] 


VII. Of our Demeanour towards the CiviL MAGISTRATE. 


1. WE do reckon our selves obliged continually to pray for 
God’s Protection, Guidance, and Blessing upon the Rulers set over 
us. 

2. That we ought to yield unto them not only subjection in the 
Lord, but support, according to our station and abilities. 

3. That if at any time it shall be their pleasure to call together 
any Number of us, or require any*® account of our Affairs, and the 
state of our Congregations, we shall most readily express all dutiful 
regard to them herein. 


VIII. Of @ Conression of FAITH. 


As to what appertains to soundness of Judgment in matters of 
Faith, we esteem it sufficient, That a Church acknowledge the 
Scriptures to be the word of God, the perfect and only Rule of Faith 
and |15| Practice; and own either the Doctrinal part of those 
commonly called the Articles of the Church of Angland, or the Con- 


1 Saybrook reads meeting. 2 Saybrook inserts the. 3 Saybrook reads az. 


462 THE HEADS OF AGREEMENT 


Session, or Catechisms, Shorter or Larger, compiled by the Assembly 
at Westminster, or the Confession agreed on at the Savoy, to be 
agreeable to the said Rule. 


IX. Of our Duty and Deportment fowards them that are not in 
Communion with us. 


1. WE judge it our duty to bear a Christian Respect to all 
Christians, according to their several Ranks and Stations, that are 
not of our Persuasion or Communion. 

2. As for such as may be ignorant of the Principles of the 
Christian Religion, or of vicious conversation, we shall in our respect- 
ive Places, as they give us opportunity, endeavour to explain to them 
the Doctrine of Life and Salvation, and to our uttermost’ persuade: 
them to be reconciled to God. 

[16] 3. That such who appear to have the Lssential Regutisites 
to Church-Communion, we shall willingly receive them in the Lord, 
not troubling them with Disputes about /esser matters. 

As we Assent to the forementioned HEADS OF AGREEMENT; So we 
Unanimously Resolve, as the Lord shall enable us, to Practice accord- 
ing to them. 


LOL E Ss 


1 Saybrook reads utmost. 


XV 


THE PROPOSALS OF 1703, AND THE SAYBROOK 
PLATFORM OF 1708 


A. PROPOSALS OF I705 
a. FULL TEXT AND SIGNATURES 


I. Question and Proposals: What Further Steps are to be taken, that the 
Councils may have due Constitution and Efficacy, etc. 12° [1705].} 

II. In Minutes of the Proceedings of the General Association of Massachu- 
setts Proper for 1814, pp. 5-9 (from a manuscript left by Cotton Mather); reprinted 
therefrom in the Panoplist, X: 322-324. 


6. THE SIGNATURES OMITTED 


III. In Wise, Ze Churches Quarrel Espoused; or, a Reply in Satyre, to cere 
tain Proposals made, in Answer to this Question: What further Steps, etc., Boston, 
1710; again in new editions of the same work in 1715, twice in 1772, and in 1860, 
all at Boston. 


LITERATURE 


John Wise, Zhe Churches Quarrel Espoused (as above), Boston, 1710, etc. 
Wise, Vindication of the Government of New England Churches, etc., Boston, 
1717; again twice in 1772, and in 1860, all at Boston.? Cotton Mather, Ratio Dis- 
cipline, Boston, 1726, pp. 176-185. J. S. Clark, Historical Sketch of the Cong. 
Churches in Mass., Boston, 1858, pp. 115-121. Clark, /ztroductory Notice to 1860 
edition of Wise’s works. M.C. Tyler, History of American Literature, New York, 
1879, II: 105-110. Dexter, Congregationalism, as seen, etc., New York, 1880, pp. 
491-502. H.A. Hill, Aestory of the Old South Church, Boston, 1890, 1: 331-334. 
A. P. Marvin, Zife and Times of Cotton Mather, Boston. [1892], pp. 313, 314. 


THE ATTEMPTED REVIVAL OF THE PROPOSALS IN 1814 


Minutes of the Proceedings of the General Association of Massachusetts Proper, 
for 1814-16; reprinted also in the Panoplist, Boston, X: 316-328; XI: 357-379; 
XII: 369. Articles in Panoplist, XI: 507-518, 537-545; XII: 489-495. The- 
ophilus [Samuel Spring], Zssay on the Discipline of Christ’s House ; containing 
Remarks on the ‘‘ Plan of Ecclesiastical Order,” which the General Association has 
presented for Publick Consideration, Newburyport, 1816. [John Lowell], Zrguiry 
into the Right to change the Ecclestastical Constitution of the Congregational 
Churches of Massachusetts, Boston, 1816. Clark, Historical Sketch of the Congre- 
gational Churches in Massachusetts, pp. 252-254. Dexter, Congregationalism, as 
seen, etc., pp. 512, 513. H. A. Hill, Aistory of the Old South Church, I1: 381, 
382. 

1 | have never seen this pamphlet ; but it is clearly the original of the copy given by Wise. 


2 A re-statement of Congregational principles, called forth by the discussion aroused by the 
Proposads, rather than a direct reply to them. 
( 463 ) 


404 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK :PLATFORM 


B. THE*’SAYBROOK PLATFORM 
TEXT AND EDITIONS 


THE FuLL ReEsutt. I. a. A Confession of Faith, Owned and Consented to 
by the Elders and Messengers Of the Churches in the Colony of Connecticut, in 
New-England, Assembled by Delegation at Say-Brook September 9th. 1708. New 
London, 1710. 6. The Heads of Agreement, Assented to by the United Ministers 
formerly called Presbyterian and Congregational. And also Articles for the Ad- 
ministration of Church Discipline Unanimously Agreed upon and consented to by 
the Elders and Messengers of the Churches in the Colony of Connecticut in New- 
England, Assembled by Delegation at Say-Brook, September oth, 1708. New Lon- 
COR Ta 710.1 sO dl, gl LO: 

II. Same titles, New London, 1760. 

III. Same titles, Bridgeport, 1810. 

TV. pulsartiord, 183.5 

V. Same titles, Hartford, 1838. 

VI. In Congregational Order, Middletown, 1843, pp. 153-286.! 

THE ARTICLES ONLY. I, Trumbull, History of Connecticut, ed. Hartford, 
1797, pp. 510-513, ed. New Haven, 1818, I: 483-486; 2. Zhe Cambridge and Say- 
brook Platforms of Church Discipline, with the Confession of Faith of . , 
1680; and the Heads of Agreement . . . Illustrated with Historical Prefaces 
and notes, Boston, 1829, pp. 115-123; 3. Upham, Ratio Discipline, Portland, 1829, 
pp. 311-316; 4. Elliott, Zhe New LEugland History, New York, 1857, Il: 119- 
124; 5. Walker, History of the First Church in Hartford, Hartford, 1884, pp. 
452-455. 

SOURCES 


I. Records of the Colony of Connecticut, V: (Hartford, 1870), pp. 51, 52, 87, 
97, 98, 192, 193, 423, 449; XI: 333, 565, 566; 2. Trumbull, History of Connec- 
facut, ed. Hartford, 1797, pp. 508-514; ed. New Haven, 1818, I: 481-487. 


THE VARYING COUNTY INTERPRETATIONS 


a. New Haven, Jonathan Todd, 4 Faithful Narrative Of the Proceedings, of 
the First Society and Church in Wallingford, in thetr Calling, and Settling The 
kev. Mr. James Dana, etc. New Haven, 1759, pp. 33-37. Congregational Order, 
Middletown, 1843, pp. 284-286. 4. Fairfield, Orcutt, History of the Old Town of 
Stratford and the City of Bridgeport, [New Haven], 1886, I: 312, 313. zyot* An- 
niversary of the Fairfield County Consociation, Bridgeport, 1886, pp. 32-34. 


LITERATURE 


T. Clap, Brief History and Vindication of the Doctrines Received and Estab- 
lished in the Churches of New England, New Haven, 1755, passim. E. Stiles, 
A Discourse on the Christian Union, Boston, 1761, passim. [T. Fitch], Az 
Explanation of Say-Brook Platform, Hartford, 1765. N. Hobart, 4x Attempt to 
tllustrate and Confirm The Ecclesiastical Constitution of the Consociated Churches 
nike Occastoned by a late Explanation of the Saybrook Platform, New Haven, 
1765. T. Clap, Zhe Annals or History of Yale-College, New Haven, 1766, pp. 12, 
13. Trumbull, Wistory of Connecticut, ed. Hartford, 1797, pp. 504-515, ed. New 
Haven, 1818, I: 478-488. T. Dwight, Zravels, New Haven, 1822, IV: 423-435. 


1 Dr. Dexter gives other editions of 1842 and 1845. 


SPIRITUAL DECLINE 405 


L. Bacon, Historical Discourses, New Haven, 1839, pp. 189-192. D. D. Field, in 
Congregational Order, Middletown, 1843, pp. 11-72. L. Bacon, in Contributions 
to Eccles. Hist. Conn., New Haven, 1861, pp. 31-62. Palfrey, History of New 
England, IV: 369-371. G. L. Walker, Hustory of the First Church, Hartford, 
1884, pp. 263-268. <A. Johnston, Coznecticut, Boston, 1887, pp. 230-235. 


Leg Was ak 
THE PROPOSALS OF 1705 
aaa the Reforming Synod doubtless had some effect in 


bettering the religious condition of New England, the re- 

sults were not what its promoters had hoped. The closing 
years of the seventeenth century were times of trial for New Eng- 
land; the loss of the Massachusetts charter, the tyranny of Andros, 
the vain efforts to secure a renewal of the ancient privileges of the 
leading colony, as well as the disastrous outcome of the two 
attempts to capture Quebec, and the demoralizing struggles with 
the Indians, together with the grim tragedy of the witchcraft de- 
lusion, all combined to make the political and commercial outlook 
of the colonies gloomy and to render a high degree of spiritual life 
difficult of maintenance in the churches. If the second generation 
on New England soil had shown a decided declension from the 
fervent zeal of the founders, the third generation was even less 
moved by the early ideals. ‘The founders had borne part in a 
movement which had embraced a nation. They had been the 
leaders in an attempt to establish in a new England the principles 
of worship and church-government which were believed in and 
struggled for by a great party at home. For a time, the rulers of 
England had looked with favor on their enterprise and had sought 
counsel of their experience. But all this was changed. New Eng- 
land was no longer the vanguard of the great Puritan cause of the 
mother-land. That party in England had spent its force. New 
England had become of necessity provincial, when the triumph of 
Episcopacy in old England had made her cease to be a factor of 
consequence in the religious life of that land, for the bond between 
the home land and the new settlements across the sea had been 
religious far more than political or commercial. And in the strug- 
gles and disasters of the latter half of the seventeenth century the 


466 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


New Englander had become narrower in thought and in sympathy 
than his father had been. If he had grown more tolerant toward 
variations in religion, it was the result of increasing religious in- 
differentism, itself the natural consequence of reaction from the 
high-wrought experiences of the first generation. It was with 
pathetic, almost exaggerated, consciousness of their own compara- 
tive feebleness that the ecclesiastical writers of the second and 
third generations looked back to the giants of the early days;’ for 
the New England of 1700 was meaner, narrower, in every way less 
inspired with the sense of a mission to accomplish and an ideal to 
uphold, than the New England of 1650. 

To the majority of the ministers of the time the outlook 
seemed full of peril. The recent political changes, and even more 
the passing away of the older generation, had greatly lessened the 
influence of the ministry on legislation and the conduct of govern- 
ment. The restiveness which had all along been more or less felt 
under the rule of the clerical element had gathered strength. In 
Boston foreign influence had established Episcopacy,’ and though 
Episcopacy was distinctly an exotic on Massachusetts soil, there 
were an increasing number of persons throughout the churches 
who desired more or less modification of the prevalent strictness 
in regard to admissions and of the almost universal restriction of the 
choice of ministers to members in full communion. These two 
tendencies were brought most sharply into contrast at Boston, 
then, as now, the intellectual center of the commonwealth. The 
conservative party embraced most of the older and more promin- 
ent ministers of the colony. Its leader was unquestionably Increase 
Mather, teacher of the Second Church in Boston, and since 1685 
president of Harvard, who, though far from universally popular, 
had. been for thirty years the most influential minister in New 
England. With him may be reckoned, since they were one in 


1 See e.g. John Higginson and William Hubbard, JestZmony to the Order of the Gospel, 
Boston, 1701. This is doubtless the fond recollection of two old men; but their tone of veneration 
is to be heard in many of the New Englanders of more youthful years at the close of the eighteenth 
century. 


2 On the origins of Episcopacy in Boston see Rev. Henry W. Foote, Memorial Hist. of Bos- 
ton, 1: 191-216. Efforts looking toward the establishment of Episcopal worship were made in 1679. 
In 1686 services were begun. 


THE NEW ENGLAND -CONSERVATIVES 407 


sympathy and aim, his son Cotton Mather,’ from 1685 his colleague 
in the pastorate of the Boston Church. ‘To the same party, also, 
belonged such ministers as James Allen of the Boston First Church, 
John Higginson and Nicholas Noyes of Salem, William Hubbard 
of Ipswich, Samuel Cheever of Marblehead, and Joseph Gerrish of 
Wenham. To these men the true method of bettering the relig- 
ious state of New England seemed to lie in a return to the princi- 
ples of the founders as illustrated in the Cambridge Platform; and 
such an enforcement of discipline within the local church and ex- 
ercise of watch over the churches by councils representative of 
the whole fellowship of a colony or district as would prevent the 
incoming of looser fashions and preserve uniformity of discipline 
and procedure. All this implied an increase in ministerial and 
synodical authority, — an increase the more difficult to obtain at a 
time when the political and spiritual tide in Massachusetts ran 
strongly in the other direction. 

The desires of this conservative party found chief expression 
in the two classes of meetings in which the ministers of that day 
gathered for conference, the Ministers’ Convention and the District 
Associations. ‘Though the general nature and the methods of each 
of these two classes of meetings in Massachusetts is clear, their 
origin is somewhat obscure. There is every reason to believe, how- 
ever, that the Ministers’ Convention can trace its source, in germ 
at least, to the beginning of the colony; while the local Associa- 
tions, at least as continuously existing bodies, are of a much later 
date.’ 

It had been the custom from the earliest days of New England 
for the ministers to gather at the meetings of the General Court,* 
especially at the Court of Election in May. Their advice was 


1 By far the best picture of Cotton Mather is contained in Prof. Barrett Wendell’s Cotton 
Mather, New York [1891]. 

2 Valuable, though by no means exhaustive, articles on the history of these bodies are those 
by A. H. Quint in Cong. Quart., II: 203-212; V: 293-304; and S. J. Spalding, /ézd., VI: 161-175; 
also in Cont. Eccles. Hist. Essex Co., Mass., pp. 8-56. 

3 Hints of such meetings are scattered through Winthrop’s Journal, see e.g. 1: 157, 363; II: 
3, 76. The statement of Lechford is direct; Plain Dealing, Trumbull’s reprint, p. 62. Whether 
the ministers met at first as an organized body is perhaps doubtful. The 7st, Sketch of the Con- 
vention of the Cong. Ministers in Mass., Cambridge, 1821, p. 5, says that the ‘* presumptive evi- 
dence”’ is ‘‘ that there was no organized Convention before the year 1680,” 


468 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


frequently taken by that body while Massachusetts was adminis- 
tered in accordance with the first charter, and though by the close 
of the seventeenth century the ministry was no longer the political 
factor that it had been, these meetings were continued, and were 


occasions of considerable ceremony. Cotton Mather speaks of the 


1 


custom in his AZagnalia as existing “in each colony” ;* and in the 


Ratio Discipline enters into quite a description of this annual Min- 
isterial Convention, as it was early in the eighteenth century. He 


thus pictures the Assembly: ’ 


‘©The Churches of Vew-Eugland . . . have no Provincial Synods . .. The 
Thing among them that is the nearest thereunto, is a General Convention of Minis- 
ters, (which perhaps are not above half)* belonging to the Province, at the time of 
the Anniversary Solemnity, when the General Assembly of the Province meets, on 
the last Wednesday in the Month of JZay, to elect their Counsellors for the Year 
ensuing. Zhen the ALinisters, chusing a J/oderator, do propose Matters of pub- 
lic Importance, referring to the Interest of Religion in the Churches ; and tho’ they 
assume no Decisive Power, yet the Advice which they give to the People of GOD, has 
proved of great Use unto the Country. 

There is now taken up the Custom, for (Conzcto ad Clerum,) a Sermon to be 
Preached unto the Convention of Ministers, on the day after the “7/ection, by one of 
their Number, chosen to it by their Votes, at their Meeting in the preceeding Year. 

At this Convention, Every Pastor that meets with singular Difficulties, has 
Opportunity to bring them under Consideration. But the Question most usually now 
considered, is of this Importance; What may be further proposed, for the preserv- 
ing and promoting of true PLETY in the Land? 

Excellent Things have been here Concerted and Concluded, for, Ze Propaga- 
tion of Religion ; and Collections produced for that Purpose in all the Churches. 

And Motions have been hence made unto the General Assembly for such Acts 
and Zaws as the Morals of the People have called for. 

[* The Governour of the Province, and such Councellors as dwell in the City of 
Boston, together with the Representatives of the Town, & the Speaker of their House ; 
are invited also to dine with the A/7z7sters, at the Table, which the Deacons of the 
united Churches in Boston provide for them, the Day after the Election . . . |.” 


This Ministerial Convention, so well described by Cotton 
Mather, was far from being a Synod, but it discussed questions of 
great moment,° and its advice was much respected. It might be 





1 Ed., 2853-5, IL: 277. 

2 Pp. 176, 177. 

3 7. e., not more than half the ministers of the province were usually in attendance. 

4 The brackets are Mather’s. 

5 &. g., in 1697 the body protested against ‘‘ tendencies which there are amongst us towards 
Deviations from the good Order wherein our Churches have . . . been happily established.” In 
1698 they decided, by a vote lacking but one of unanimity (Stoddard ?), that ‘the Church Covenant as 
Commonly practised in the Churches of New-England”’ is Scriptural. Increase Mather, Order of 
the Gospel, Boston, 1700, pp. 8, 9, 39. 


MINISTERIAL GATHERINGS 409 


made the instrument of a more centralized church government; or 
if not itself the head of a more consolidated ecclesiastical system, 
might recommend such a union to the churches. 

Beside this Ministerial Convention, there were at the opening 
of the eighteenth century, five district Associations in Massachu- 
setts,’ all tracing their immediate origin to the Association meeting 
at Cambridge, which had been founded in October, 1690, and in- 
cluded most of the ministers in the vicinity of Boston. There had 
been Ministerial Meetings, similar to the later Associations, in the 
early days of the colony. Winthrop records, in November, 1633, 
that “The ministers in the bay and Sagus did meet, once a fort- 
night, at one of their houses by course, where some question of 
moment was debated;”? and that Skelton of Salem and Roger 
Williams “ took some exception against it, as fearing it might grow 
in time to a presbytery,’—a fear which the governor did not 
share, for the ministers “were all clear in that point, that no 
church or person can have power over another church; neither did 
they in their meetings exercise any such jurisdiction.” This little 
association doubtless included all of the few ministers then in 
Massachusetts who were able or willing to belong to it. Lechford, 
writing in 1641, found the same meeting and the same anti-Presby- 
terian fears ;*° and the Body of Liberties, adopted in December of 
that year, had expressly granted ministers “free libertie to meete 
monthly, quarterly, or otherwise, in convenient numbers and places;”’ 
but these meetings were to be “onely by way of brotherly confer- 
ence and consultations.” * The Ministers’ Assembly which the 
Presbyterian ways of Rev. Messrs. Parker and Noyes called 
together at Cambridge in 1643 declared “that Consociation of 
churches, in way of more general meetings, yearly; and more 
privately, monthly, or quarterly; as consultative Synods ; are very 


1 The signatures to the Proposals of 1705 show the existence of five Associations at that date, 
It illustrates the obscurity of the subject, however, that the careful article written by Dr. Quint 30 
years ago knew nothing of the existence of two of the five and was unable to trace the third toa 
period earlier than nearly 20 years subsequent to 1705. 

2 Winthrop, ed. 1853, 1: 139. Sagus is Lynn. 

8 Plain Dealing, Trumbull’s reprint, p. 37. Dr. Trumbull has illustrated the passage, as 
usual, with notes of great value. 

4 Jézd., notes p. 38; 3 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., VIII: 234, 235. 


470 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


comfortable, and necessary for the peace and good of the 
churches.” ? 

But, for reasons not now very easy to discover, unless it be for 
fear of Presbyterian tendencies, these early meetings seem to have 
fallen into complete disuse. Rev. Thomas Shepard of Charles- 
town, in his election sermon of 1672,’ declared that he remembered 
such gatherings in his childhood, and there were “hundreds yet 
living’”’ who could “remember the ministers meetings in the several 
towns by course, at Cambridge, Boston, Charlestown, Roxbury, 
&c.” And the much later satire of John Wise, Zhe Churches Quar- 
rel Espoused, confirms the testimony of Shepard that they were dis- 
used by the close of the third quarter of the seventeenth century. 
“About Thirty years ago, more or less,” he says (writing about 
1710), “there was no appearance of the Associations of Pastors in 
these Colonies, and in some Parts and Places, there is none yet.”’ ® 

The permanent reéstablishment of Ministers’ Associations 
came about through English example. On September 7, 1655, 
such a body had been formed at Bodmin, in Cornwall. Its meet- 
ings were not probably of long continuance; by the summer of 
1659, the journal. had closed,) But ‘the, book (of itsmihecoegs 
passed into the possession of one of its members, Rev. Charles 
Morton; and Morton came to New England in 1686,and became 
speedily the pastor at Charlestown. A man of much influence in 
the colony, it is probable that it was his endeavors which resulted 
in the organization of the first permanent district Association in 
Massachusetts, on October 13, 1690. ‘This body embraced most of 
the ministers in the vicinity of Boston, and was often called by 
that name,° though its meetings, at least during the early part of 
its history, were “at the College in Cambridge, on a Monday at 


1 Jé7d., Hanbury, Memorials, I1: 343. 

2 Eye Salve, or a Watchword from our Lord Jesus Christ unto His Churches,.p. 29; 
quoted by Quint, Cozg. Quart., IL: 204. 

3 Second ed., 1715, p. 70. 

4 The record book of this body, containing a list of the members of the Bodmin Association, 
and also the members and doings of the Cambridge, Mass., Association from 1690 to 1704, is in the 
possession of the Mass. Hist. Society. It is described and the names of members given by A. H. 
Quint, Cong. Quarterly, 11: 204-207. 

5 It is so called in the signatures to the Proposals, of 1705. Its meeting place was eventually 
Boston, but its records from 1704 to 1753 are lost. See Coxg. Quart., V: 204. 


DISTRICT ASSOCIATIONS 471 


nine or ten of the clock in the morning, once in six weeks, or 
oftener.”? Its pledge of union and its rules were based on those 
of the Bodmin body. The example thus set was followed by the 
organization of similar bodies, in Essex County, about Weymouth, 
about Sherborne, and in Bristol County, during the last decade of 
the seventeenth and first three or four years of the eighteenth 
centuries.” 

These organizations felt their purpose to be deliberative, as 


well as social. That at Cambridge had for its aim:* 


‘*t, To debate any matter referring to ourselves. 
2. 'To hear and consider any cases that shall be proposed unto us, from 
churches or private persons. 
3. To answer any letters directed unto us, from any other associations or 
persons. 
4. To discourse of any question proposed at the former meeting.” 

Under these rules the body set itself, led, it may well be be- 
lieved, by the Mathers, toa general overhauling and strengthening 
of Congregational usage.* The most conspicuous of these attempts 
to put a stricter interpretation on current Congregationalism are 


perhaps the following:° 


‘* Synods, duly composed of messengers chosen by them whom they are to rep- 
resent, and proceeding with a due regard unto the will of God in his word, are to be 





1 Its rules are given in full in the Wagnadia, ed. 1853-5, II: 271, 272. 

2 Indications of the existence of another association, in Essex Co. (Salem it is called in the 
‘signatures of 1705), may be found in the records of the Cambridge body as early as Nov., 1691. 
Cong. Quart., 11: 208. When the next association further north than Salem, that at Bradford, 
was organized in 1719, its formula of union was the same as that of Bodmin and Cambridge. As 
the Bradford association probably sprang from that at Salem, it indicates a common origin for all. 
The Cambridge records as early as 1692 imply the existence of at least three associations. Dr. 
Quint conjectured that the third was Plymouth. But Plymouth does not appear in the list of 
signers of 1705, where we find instead, Weymouth, Sherborne, and Bristol. 

3 Magnalia, 11: 272, Rule vi. 

4 Cotton Mather gives the texts of a long series of conclusions of this body, the Matherine 
origin of most of which seems evident from their style, 7agualia, Il: 239-269. An enumeration 
of the main subjects treated shows the scope of the discussions: 1. Right of a minister to officiate 
in a church not his own; 2. Ruling elders; 3. Powers of councils; 4. Powers of ministers in their 
-churches; 5. Visitation of the sick in epidemics; 6. When a minister may leave his people; 7. Mar- 
riage with the sister of a deceased wife; 8. Discipline of the baptized children of the church; 9. 
Just divorce; 10. Ordination; 11. Who choses a minister; 12. Resignation of Ministry; 13. In- 
quiries by pastors into scandals; 14. Secrets confided to ministers; 15. Duty toward withdrawers 
from communion; 16. Usury; 17. Special days of religious observance; 18. Eating blood and 
things strangled; 19. Use oi ceremonies in God’s worship; 20. Cards, dice, etc.; 21. Respect due 
to public places of worship; 22. Drinking of healths; 23. Instrumental music in the worship of 
God ; 24. Administration of baptism by the unordained ; 25. Marriage of Cousin-Germans; 26. Re- 
lation of church-discipline to civil conviction. Other topics may be found in the MS. records. 

5 Both Magnalia, I1: 248. It is hardly needful to point out that by ‘“‘synod”’ is signified 
what is now known as a ‘‘ council.’ 


472 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


reverenced, as determining the mind of the Holy Spirit concerning things necessary 
to be ‘received and practised,’ in order to the edification of the churches therein 
represented.” 

‘* Synods being of apostolic example, recommend’ as a necessary ordinance, it is 
but reasonable that their judgment be acknowledged as decisive, the affairs for 
which they are ordained; and to deny them the power of such a judgment, is to 


>”) 


render a necessary ordinance ‘of none effect. 


In these votes we see evidently the conservative feeling that 
individual churches and ministers should be repressed and limited 
by the decisive power of councils in their possible departures from 
the general opinion of their associates. It was this feeling which 
found its sharpest expression in Massachusetts history in the Pro- 
posals of 1705. 

But there were not wanting those, especially among the 
younger ministry, and even in the Cambridge Association itself, to 
whom a return to the ideals of early New England was distasteful, 
and who looked upon the proposed strengthening of the ecclesias- 
tical machinery as a menace to liberty of thought and action. The 
leaders of this party were four youngerly men of position; two of 
them being John Leverett’ and William Brattle,*? graduates of Har- 
vard in 1680, who had become tutors in the College in 1685, the 
year which saw the beginning of Increase Mather’s presidency, and . 
who had taken practical charge of the college during Mather’s long 
absence in England as agent for the colony. Leverett was des- 
tined to be Mather’s second successor at the head of the college, 
holding that office from 1707 to his death in 1724; while Brattle, in 
1696, became pastor of the Cambridge church. With these two 
men were associated Thomas Brattle,* brother of the Cambridge 
pastor, and from 1693 to 1713 treasurer of Harvard; and Ebenezer 
Pemberton,’ a graduate of Harvard in 1691 and a tutor in that in- 
stitution, who, from August 28, 1700, to his death, in February,. 
1717, was colleague pastor of the Third, or Old South Church, in. 
Boston. Occupying a position between the Mathers and the inno- 
vators, and not without sympathy for the latter, was Samuel Wil- 

1 Recommended ? 

2 For his biography, see Sibley, Graduates of Harvard, 111: 180-198. % Zbid., pp. 200-2072. 


4 Tbid., 11: 489-498. Thomas Brattle graduated in 1676. 
5 See H. A. Hill, History of the Old South Church, 1., passim. 


THE NEW ENGLAND LIBERALS 473 


lard,’ a man considerably older than either of the four just enu- 
merated, the teacher of the Old South Church in Boston from 
1678 to 1707, the vice-president of Harvard from 1699 to 1707, and 
from the practical deposition of Increase Mather in 1701 in fact, 
though not in name, the president of the college. 

The alterations sought by these men were not numerous, and 
to the modern student of their stories do not seem startling. Yet 
they are very significant as a step further away from the older 
New England Congregationalism and from the restraining hand of 
a stronger ecclesiastical government, just at the time when the 
Mathers and their friends were trying to restore something of the 
waning power of the clergy in political affairs and to revive the 
discipline of the churches. The work of the innovators was in 
two principal directions, the founding of a new church, sympathetic 
with their beliefs, in Boston; and the exclusion of the Mathers 
from the control of Harvard. Probably the personal element of 
Opposition to these eminent conservatives was as prominent a 
motive in the controversy as any. 

The changes desired by the innovators centered about the 
mode of admission to full communion. The older New England 
custom, still almost universally prevalent, required, at least in the 
case of those who were not baptized children of the church, a 
public relation of religious experience. In most churches such 
declarations, either oral or written, were expected from all. This 
requirement was felt by many to be a burden, especially as the 
prevailing type of piety was not ardent or emotional. The South 
Church in Boston had gone so far in 1678 as to allow those who so 
wished to present their “relations” to the ministers rather than to 
the church.’ Then, too, the feeling had been growing in some quar- 
ters that all, or at least all baptized male adults, who contributed 
to the minister’s support should have a voice in his selection, and 
the choice should not be confined, as was the usage, to members 
in full communion.’ A third change desired by some, and notably, 


1 Jézd. ; and Sibley, Grad. of Harvard, I1: 13-36. 

2 Hill, Hzst. Old South, 1: 220. 

3 The rule was not without exceptions. In 1672 the non-communicants at Salem had shared 
in the choice of a minister, and at Dedham in 1685. Robbins, W7st. Second Ch., Boston, 1852, pp. 
4tn423 halirey, List. NV. £.; 1V : 190, 

at 


- 


474 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK: FLATHVORM 


it is probable, by Thomas Brattle, on whom Episcopal forms had 
made an impression,’ was what would now be called an “ enrich- 
ment” of the service. ‘The early Puritans, in their revulsion from 
all set forms, had disused the Lord’s prayer, and usually read the 
Scriptures in public worship only to expound them verse by verse.’ 
Reading without comment was “ dumb reading,’’* and was thought 
to savor of the prayer-book. ‘The innovators desired that some 
portion of the Scripture, chosen by the minister, should be read at 
every service, and they saw advantages in the devotional reading 
of passages without explanation and in the repetition of the Lord’s 
prayer. A fourth alteration desired was an extension of the right 
to baptism, so that not only children of those in the covenant of 
the churches, but any children presented by any professing Chris- 
tian who would stand sponsor for their religious training should 
receive the ordinance.‘ | 
These were the looser positions held by the innovators, though 
not at first, it would appear, in an aggressively controversial man- 
ner; but to the Mathers and the rest of the conservative party 


& 





1 See Sibley, Graduates of Harvard, I1: 491. 

2 While the use of the Lord’s prayer was not wholly disapproved by the conservatives of the 
.age of which we treat, the rarity of their employment of it may be judged by a story told by In- 
crease Mather, Order of the Gospel, Boston, 1700, p. 118: ‘*Mr. Jeremiah Burroughs 
[a Congregational member of the Westminster Assembly, died 1646] once when he preached his 
Expository Lectures was prevented from coming to the Assembly exactly at the Hour appointed. 
If he should at that time have inlarged in Prayer as he usually did, the Auditors would have been 
detained longer then they expected. Nor was he willing to begin his Exposition without any 
Prayer at all, he therefore began it with only Praying in the words of the Lords Prayer. This re- 
port I believe; for my most Dear and Honoured Friend Dr. W7?/iam Bates, late Pastor of a Church 
in Hackney near London . . . assured that he was then present and an Zar Witness of what 
I have now related.”’ 

As regards reading the Scriptures, see Cotton Mather, Ratzo Discipline, pp. 63-68. By the 
time he wrote the practice had become not uncommon; yet in June, 1765, the General Association 
of Connecticut felt constrained to call on the local Associations of the Colony to promote the 
‘*making the Public reading of the Sacred Scriptures a part of the Public worship in our churches”’; 
and as late as 1810, the Litchfield South Consociation passed votes favoring the practice. See 
Walker, Hist. First Church in Hartford, p. 224. 

3]. Mather, Order of the Gospel, p. 47. 

4 This practice, not unlike that of god-parents of the English Church, became widely prevalent 
in the eighteenth century. Numerous illustrations might be cited from the Records of the First 
Church, Hartford. There the first entry is of Sept. 4, 1709. But the ground of the concession 
seems to have been usually servitude or pupilage in the family of those who stood sponsors. Thus, 
‘‘ Aug. 23, 1730. Deacon Sheldon offered three negroe children born in his house to Baptisme & in 
publick engaged to take care they should be brought up in the christian faith. They were named 
George: Cuffy: & Susanna”’’; or, ‘‘Sept. 8. 1717. Elisabeth Vibert, servant to Aaron Cooke, who 
publickly engaged to bring her up in the Christian faith.’’ But sometimes the relationship is not 
so apparent, e. g, ‘‘Octob. 9. 1715. Joseph, a child offered to baptism by Homer Howard, he pub- 
lickly engaging to bring it up in the Christian faith.” 


THE MATHERS OPPOSE INNOVATION 475 


they seemed to call for vigorous oppositicn. Nor were the 
Mathers wrong in their estimate of the danger to the old order of 
things which these novelties threatened. Accordingly, when Cot- 
ton Mather published his Zzfe of . . . Jonathan Mitchel’ in 
1697, Increase Mather took occasion in a prefatory “ Epistle Dedti- 
catory,” addressed “ To the Church at Cambridge in New-England, 
and to the Students of the Colledge there,” to set forth Mitchell’s 
view of the necessity of “relations” preparatory to admission to 
church-membership, and to make pointed exhortations to the 
church, the tutors, and the students to be true to Mitchell’s 
theories, in a way that must have seemed dictatorial, and was 
doubtless exasperating, to the innovators. 

The “Epistle Dedicatory’”’ was dated. May 7, 1697, and in 
August of the same year the Mathers took occasion to attack 
another of the projects dear to the Brattles and their friends. 
Doubtless at the suggestion of its pastors, the Second Boston 
Church sent a letter of admonition to the Church in Charlestown, 
“for betraying the liberties of the churches, in their late putting 
into the hands of the whole inhabitants the choice of a minister.” ” 

These two actions, showing clearly the spirit of the conserva- 
tive party and the determination of the Mathers to enforce their 
views, seem to have inclined the innovators to take decided action. 
There were now three Congregational churches in Boston; two, the 
First and Second, strongly conservative, and the other more divided 
in feeling, but possessing prominent conservatives like Lieut.-Gov. 
Stoughton, Waitstill Winthrop, and Judge Sewall among its mem- 
bership. None would therefore represent the innovators’ views, 
and they determined to found a fourth ® church. 

The movement to this end seems to have taken shape late in 





1 Cotton Mather reprinted the whole tract, with the preface, in the Magnadlia, ed. 1853-5, 
II: 66-113. 

2 Robbins, 7story of the Second Church in Boston, p. 42. 

3 For the founding of Brattle Church, see Lothrop, H7zstory of the Church tn Brattle 
Street, Boston, 1851; Quincy, H7story of Harvard University, ed. Boston, 1860, 1: 127-144, 486, 
487,502; Robbins, Wzstory of the Second Church in Boston, pp. 40-44; Palfrey, AWzst. V. £., 1V: 
189-191; A. McKenzie in Memorial History of Boston, \1: 204-211; Sibley, Graduates of Har- 
vard, biographies of the Brattle and Leverett; Brooks Adams, Z7mancipation of Massachusetts, 
Boston, 1887, pp. 237-254; H. A. Hill, Hzst. Old South Church, 1: 308-313. Wendell, Cotton 
Mather, passin. 


476 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


1697 ; and in January, 1698, Thomas Brattle transferred to a body 
of associates, of which he was a leader, the site for the new meet- 
ing-house on what was then called Brattle’s Close.’ Here a plain, 
unpainted building was at once erected.* The thoughts of the 
associates turned toward Benjamin Colman as their future minister. 
This able and remarkable man had graduated at Harvard in 1692, 
and had therefore been under the instruction of Leverett and 
William Brattle. He was, moreover, the intimate friend of Ebene- 
zer Pemberton and shared his innovating sentiments. Colman was 
in England at the time the erection of the new meeting-house was 
begun; and thither urgent letters were sent to him in May, 1699, 
by Leverett, William Brattle, Simon Bradstreet,* and Pemberton, 
reinforcing a formal call signed by Thomas Brattle and four others, 
in the name of the associates.* The call was accepted, and as his 
reception by the three existing Boston churches was not likely to 
be favorable, by advice of his Boston friends, Colman procured 
ordination at the hands of the London Presbytery, August 4, 1699. 
On November first, Colman was in Boston, a full-fledged minister 
according to Presbyterian ideas, but no clergyman in the view of 
stricter Congregationalists; and on November 17th, the associates. 
put forth a AZanzfesto,’ declaring their firm adherence to the doc- 
trinal standards of the churches, as set forth in the Westminster 
Confession, and their desire for fellowship with other churches; 
but asserting all the principles which we have seen cherished by 
the innovators, except that regarding the use of the Lord’s prayer.’ 
The publication of this declaration was followed, on December 12th, 

1 Sibley, Grad. of Harvard, 11: 491, 402. 

2 Described in Memorial Hist. Boston, 11: 207. 

3 Bradstreet was minister at Charlestown, the man whose election as colleague with Morton 
by the votes of the whole community had called out the protests of the Boston Second Church, 

4 An illustration of the prominence to be given by the church which was soon to be organized 
to the element which had heretofore been debarred from a share in church government may be seen in. 


the fact that Thomas Brattle was only a half-way member of the Third Church when he thus acts 
as chairman of this body which thus calls a minister. The call is in Lothrop, 7st. Brattle Ch., 
PP. 45-47. 

5 The Church was hence long nicknamed the ‘* Manifesto Church.”’ The text may be found 
in Lothrop, Hist. Brattle St. Ch., pp. 20-26; and a good abstract in the Memorzal Hist., Boston, 
II: 208. Its authorship is uncertain, but has been usually attributed to Colman. 

6 Though the use of the Lord’s prayer is not mentioned in the ‘* Manifesto,”’ tradition asserts 
that it was used from the beginning in the services of Brattle Church. Lothrop, 7st. Brattle 
Church, p. 51. 


BRATTLE CHURCH A\A7 


by the organization of a church of fourteen members, without aid 
of council or countenance from other churches. 

All this was thoroughly at variance with the older New Eng- 
land theory and practice; to the Mathers it seemed the dawning of 
a “day of temptation begun upon the town and land,” brought 
about by “a company of headstrong men in the town, the chief of 
whom are full of malignity to the holy ways of our churches,” who 
“have published, under the title of a Manifesto, certain articles 
that utterly subvert our churches.’”’’ When, therefore, the new 
church, in accordance with a vote passed on the day of its organ- 
ization, made overtures looking toward fellowship with the other 
Boston churches, Increase Mather and James Allen, representing 
the Second and First churches, replied, under date of December 
28th, that they could not join in the proposed fast unless the in- 
novators would give “the satisfaction which the law of Christ 
requires for your [their] disorderly proceedings.” * Two days 
later the eminent conservative ministers of Salem, John Higginson 
and Nicholas Noyes, addressed an earnest letter of reproof to the 
new church.’ But the pastor of the Third Boston Church, Samuel 
Willard, and some of the members of his church, even conservative 
laymen like Stoughton and Sewall, strove for peace. A partial 
reconciliation was effected, so that on January 31, 1700, all the 
Boston Congregational ministers united with Mr. Colman and his 
congregation in the religious exercises appropriate to a fast, and 
thus gave them the desired recognition.* 

But though both the Mathers took part in this fraternal ser- 
vice, the victorious innovators were a sore grievance to them; and 
therefore in March,° 1700, Increase Mather published what is one 


of the most interesting, but at the same time controversial, tracts 





1 C, Mather’s Journal, in Quincy, Wzstory of Harvard University, ed. Boston, 1860, 1: 486, 
487; Brooks Adams, Emancipation of Mass., pp. 245-247. 

2 Adams, /ézd., pp. 247, 248; Lothrop, Wzst. Brattle St. Church, pp. 55, 56. 

3 Lothrop, 7ézd., pp. 28-37. 

4 Sewall gives some account of the negotiations and the services of the fast. 5 Coll. Mass. 
fist. Soc., V1: 2,3. For Cotton Mather’s statement see Quincy, Azst. Harvard, 1: 487. 

5 Preface dated ‘1 m, 1700.’’ The Memorial Hist. of Boston, 1: 209, interprets this as Jan., 
but C. Mather’s Journal shows that the printing of an ‘‘ antidote,’’ doubtless the Order, was just 
suspended at the finishing of the first sheet when the reconciliation was effected in January. 
Quincy, /ézd. 


478 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


of Congregational history, his Order of the Gospel. This little 
work, while it called no man by name, distinctly attacked the whole 
recent movement and its leaders. 


“Tf,” said Mather, ‘‘we Espouse such principles as these, Namely, Z/at 
Churches are not to Enguire into the Regeneration of those whom they admit unto 
their Communion. That Admission to Sacraments ts to be left wholly to the pru- 
dence and Conscience of the Minister. That Explicit Covenanting with God and 
with the Church is needless. That Persons not Qualified for Communion in special 
Ordinances shall Elect Pastors of Churches. That all Professed Christians have 
right to Baptism. That Brethren are to have no voice in Ecclesiastical Councils. 
That the Essence of a Ministers call is not in the Election of the People, but in the 
Ceremony of Imposing hands. That Persons may be Established in the Pastoral 
Office without the Approbation of Neighbouring Churches or Elders; We then give 
away the whole Congregational cause at once, and a great part of the Presbyterian 
Discipline also.” * 


The various proposed innovations were opposed in detail; and 
the recent action by which the Brattle Church had organized and 
provided itself with a minister without the advice of neighboring 
churches was severely condemned in principle. Mather found 
Colman’s foreign ordination particularly abhorrent. ‘To say,” he 
remarked, “that a Wandring Levite who has no Flock is a Pastor, 
is as good sense as to Say, that he that has no Children is a Father.” * 
Nor did Mather’s innovating subordinates at the College escape 
censure; heexhorted: “ Let the Churches Pray for the Col/edge partic- 
ularly, that God may ever Bless that Society with faithful Zudéors 
that will be true to Christs Interest and theirs, and not Hanker 
after new and loose wayes.”’* 

To this little book an anonymous reply was issued in the same 
year, entitled Gospel Order Revived, and conjecturally the joint 
product of Rev. Messrs. Benjamin Colman, Simon Bradstreet, and 
John Woodbridge,*® perhaps also of William Brattle.° The answer 
was personal and not very reverential; it distinctly charged In- 


crease Mather with showing one spirit in London and another in 


1 Printed at Boston and reprinted the same year in London. 

2 Order of the Gospel, p. 8. Some of these views were those already entertained by Rev. 
Solomon Stoddard of Northampton, Mass., which were to be given to the world the same year in 
his Doctrine of Instituted Churches ; a work probably called out by the Order. 

3 Jb¢d., p. 102. 4 [bid., pp. 11, 12. 

5 So Sibley, Grad. of Harvard, 1: 455. It has sometimes been attributed to Stoddard, but: 
with no certainty, and also credited to Solomon Southwick, see Vatzon, LV + 415. 

6 Adams, Z7zanctpation of Mass., p. 250. 


CONSEQUENT. DISPUTES 479 


Boston, and it laughed at some of his criticisms of uncommenting 
reading as if they were a valuation of Mather’s own comments 
above the word of God. Yet the expression which perhaps most 
stirred the Mathers was in the advertisement prefaced to the work, 
which declared that “the Press in Boston is so much under the aw 
of the Reverend Author, whom we answer, and his Friends, that 
we could not obtain of the Printer there to print the following 
Sheets.”* The extent to which this allegation was true caused not. 
a little discussion;? and the work was answered, in 1701, by a 
pretty personal pamphlet, not improbably written by ‘Cotton 
Mather, and certainly prefaced by his father. But though Increase 
Mather denounced the writer of Gospel Order Revived, whom he 
supposed to be Colman, as “of a very unsanctified temper and 
spirit,” and affirmed that Thomas Brattle had done as “a moral 
heathen would not have done,” the Brattle Church grew and flour- 
ished. ‘The conservative party were the defeated party; and it is 
not to be wondered that those who loved the New England of the 
fathers felt alarmed at the outlook. 

Their alarm was the greater because the conservative party in 
Boston had employed other means to check the growth of the in- 
novating movément beside the publication of pamphlets. On May 
30, 1700, about three months after the issue of Increase Mather’s 
Order of the Gospel, the Ministerial Convention brought together 
its annual assemblage of the pastors of the province at Boston.* 
And, under Mather’s lead,° they passed the following vote, designed 
to prevent the establishment of a second Brattle Church: ° 

‘“To prevent the great mischief to the Evangelical Interests, that may arise 


from the unadvised proceedings of People to gather Churches in the Neighbourhood, 


1 Leaf before title. The work was printed in New York, though no place is given on the title. 

2 See Thomas, Hzst. Printing in America, Il: 346; Palfrey, Hzst. N. £.,1V: 191. The 
statement seems only partially true. 

3A Collection of Some of the Many Offensive Matters, Contained in a Pamphlet, en- 
tituled, The Order of the Gospel Revived, Boston, 1701. 

# Our knowledge of this meeting of the Convention and its vote is due to Increase Mather, 
Disquisition Concerning Ecclesiastical Counctls, Boston, 1716, p. 38; [Reprinted in Cong. 
Quarterly, XI1: 365, 366. ] 

5 Mather says, /ézd., ‘‘ This was the Vote which passed at the mentioned Convention. When 
also he that writes these Lines, was desired to Address the Churches accordingly. What has 
hitherto retarded, I need not mention.’’ 

8 See note 4 above. 


480 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


it is provided, that the Result of the Synod, in 1662, relating to the Consociation of 
Churches! may be Republished, with an Address to the Churches, Intimating our 
desires (and so far as we are Concerned our purposes) to see that Advice carefully 
attended, and the irregular Proceedings of any People hereafter contrary to that 
Advice, not Encouraged.” 

It needed something more than the republication of the hasty 
votes of bygone Synods to stay the tendencies of the time. 

Of course matters could not stop here. Increase Mather was 
president of Harvard College, but that institution had, as we have 
seen, come largely under the control of the innovators, The 
college was in a precarious state.” Left without a charter by the 
revocation of the charter of the colony under which the corpora- 
tion had been created, vain attempts were made to procure new 
incorporation in 1692, 1696, 1697, 1699, and 1700; attempts in which 
the Mathers tried to maintain the interests of the conservative 
party, but which all came to naught through causes ultimately 
traceable to the determination of the English government that 
nothing should be done unfavorable to Episcopacy. But Increase 
Mather, though president, refused to reside at Cambridge. His 
ministry over the largest congregation in Boston was a point of 
vantage which he would not lightly resign. His services to the 
colony and to the college were of the highest value,*® but the fact 
of his non-residence caused annoyance. In. February, 1693, the 
lower House of the General Court had passed a vote that the 
“President shall be Resident at y® Colledge.” * In June, 1695, this 
vote was repeated,* and in December, 1698, the request was en- 
forced by the offer of a considerable increase in salary.® In July, 
1700, the Court in more positive language than before insisted that 
Mather should go to Cambridge, and so peremptory was the demand 
that for a few weeks the president resided at the college.” But he 


1 See ante, pp. 337-339. Mather republished it on pp. 40-47, of his Disguzsttion. 

2 The relations of the Mathers to the college is very unsympathetically told by Quincy in his 
valuable History of Harvard College, ed. 1860, 1: 57-126. This is still the fullest treatment of 
the subject. See also Robbins, W7zst. Second Ch., Boston, pp. 44-64; Palfrey, Hist. N. E., 1V: 
192-196 ; Sibley, Grad. of Harvard, 1: 423-430; Brooks Adams, Emancipation of Mass., pp. 
261-285; H. A. Hill, Wzst. Old South Church, 1: 319-323; Wendell, Cotton Mather, passim. 

3 Even Quincy admits this. Compare the discriminating remarks of Robbins, Wzst. Second 
Church, pp. 44-47, 52-54. 

4 Sibley, Grad. of Harvard, 1: 425. 5 Tbid., 425, 426. 

8 Jéid., 426. 7 [bid., 427. 


THE MATHERS AND HARVARD 481 


longed for Boston, his health at Cambridge was not good, and by 
October 17, 1700, he was once more away from the college. And 
now Mather’s many opponents whom politics, the prominence of 
his son in the witchcraft trials,’ and especially the late Brattle 
Church quarrel, had stirred up against him, saw the opportunity to 
remove his influence either from Boston or Cambridge. Mather 
was alarmed, and in April, May, and June, 1701, actually resided at 
Cambridge. But again his homesickness for Boston overcame him, 
and the danger of resigning his church for a precarious post at the 
head of an unchartered college, harrassed as he was by constant 
attacks, impressed him; and, therefore, on June 30, 1701, he wrote 
to Lieut. Governor Stoughton a letter for presentation to the Gen- 
eral Court in which he announced his return to Boston, and ex- 
pressed his “desire that the General Court would as soon as may 
be, think of another President for the Colledge.” *? This letter he 
followed up by a personal meeting with the legislature on August 
tst, at which he declared his willingness to resume charge of the 
college on the old basis of non-residence.* The president had 
underrated the strength of the opposition. He felt with reason 
that his claims to the gratitude of the colony were considerable 
and he apparently believed that he could induce the legislature to 
abandon the obnoxious requirement rather than dispense with his 
services. That body, however, took a different view. It sum- 
moned Vice-President Samuel Willard of the Third Boston Church 
to take charge of the college and to reside at Cambridge.* But 
Willard felt the same unwillingness to leave his church that Mather 
had experienced. He delayed the decision of the question. And, 
therefore, on September 5, 1701, Mather’s friends renewed the 
proposition that the presidency should once more be offered to him, 
The lower House passed the resolution;® its membership was 


largely from the country, and was at once conservative religiously, 


1 Calef’s More Wonders of the Invisible World, London, 1700, reached Boston just at this 
juncture, Nov., 1700. Calef had been aided in its composition by the Brattles and it undoubtedly 
hurt the Mathers at a critical moment. Compare Wendell, Cotton Mather, p. 150. 

2 Letter in Quincy, Hzst. Harvard Univ., 1: 501, 502; see also Sibley, I: 428. 

3 Sibley, 7ézd. 4 Jbid. 

5 Quincy, Azst. Harvard Univ., 1: 115, 116; where quotations are given from Court 
Records. 


482 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


and not so ambitious politically as to have felt slighted, as did 
some of the upper House, at the appointments made by the Eng- 
lish government on Mather’s suggestion when the new charter had 
been granted in 1691. But the Council or upper House, composed 
largely of residents in Boston and its vicinity, to some extent 
sympathetic with the religious movement of the Brattles and even 
more filled with political grudges against Increase Mather, which 
his domineering disposition had done much to foster and little to 
heal, sent a committee to Willard to ascertain on what terms he 
would take the administration of the college. He replied that he 
was willing to visit Cambridge “once or twice every Week apts 
And Performe the Service used to be done by former Presidents.” * 
This put him on exactly the same footing as Mather; but how fully 
the feeling of the upper House had turned against the old presi- 
dent is shown in the action of that body after hearing the report 
of its committee. On September 6th, it negatived the proposition 
of the lower House that the presidency be offered to Mather, and 
took Willard on his own terms.’ In this latter action the lower 
House concurred. <A show of consistency was maintained in that 
Willard continued to wear the title of vice-president, while the 
presidency remained nominally vacant; but the defeat of the 
Mathers was none the less obvious, and their defeat was that of 
the whole conservative party. It left a feeling of bitterness as 
long as Increase and Cotton Mather lived,* for the struggle had 
been a serious and honest attempt to preserve the college from 
what they deemed essential spiritual harm, as well as a contest into 

1 Sibley, I: 4209. 

2 Jéid,, lt 4293 Ils 22: Quincy, Ast. Harvard Univ., 1: 115, 1165 Hill O77 esone 
Church, 1: 322, 323. 

3 See Sewall’s diary, 5 Mass. Hist. Coll., V1: 43-45; C. Mather, Parentator, p.173. On 
the death of Vice-President Willard in 1707, the Mathers hoped that one or the other of them would 
be elected, but the office fell to their old opponent, John Leverett, ‘‘ He had eight votes, Dr. In- 
crease Mather three, Mr. Cotton Mather, one, and Mr. Brattle of Cambridge, one.’’ (Sewall, /d7d., 
196). Leverett died in 1724, the year after the death of Increase Mather, and Cotton Mather again 
hoped for election, and hoped for it too quite as much that he might advance the conservative cause 
as for personal aggrandizement. But he was disappointed. The choice fell on Rev. Joseph Sewall,, 
on Rev. Benjamin Colman, who both declined; and, finally, on Rev. Benjamin Wadsworth, who. 
accepted. The second of these choices was exasperating enough to Mather, and he exclaimed in his. 
diary, ‘* The corporation of our Miserable Colledge do again . . . treat me with their accustomed 


Judgment and Malignity.”’ (See for this and other quotations, Wendell, Cotton Mather, pp. 292-4.) 
But as far as any control of the college by the Mathers was concerned the action of 1701 was final. 


SLEPSe LEADING TO;THE PROPOSALS 483 


which more selfish motives entered; and the defeat seemed not 
only a great personal slight but the ruin of the cause which the 
father and son believed to be that of the Gospel. 

Conscious thus of failure in resisting the tide of innovation 
in the town of Boston and in the college, the conservative party 
would not give up the struggle without further effort to buttress 
the ancient Congregational system. They felt that the churches 
and ministers might be banded together for mutual assistance ina 
more effective way than they had been. And such is often the 
curious effect of the lapse of a little time, or the attainment of a 
fixed position ina community, in modifying ecclesiastical struggles, 
that we find some men once prominent among the Brattle Church 
innovators now supporting associational movements which had for 
their design the prevention of similar organizations in the future. 
Indeed there is abundant evidence that Benjamin Colman himself 
was not long in ranging himself among the more conservative 
forces in the Massachusetts colony.’ 

The steps which led to this consociational movement are 
obscure, but as far as the writer can ascertain the initiation was in 
the Minister’s Convention of June 1, 1704. That body issued the 
following circular letter to the churches :? 

it Boston, 1. d. IV. m. 1704. 

To Serve the Great Intentions of Religion, which is lamentably decaying in the 
Country : It is proposed, 

I. That the Pastors of the Churches do personally Discourse with the Young 
People in their Flocks, and with all possible Prudence and Goodness endeavour to 
win their Consent unto the Covenant of Grace, in all the Glorious Articles of it. 

II. That unto this Purpose, the Pastors do take up that Laborious, but engag- 
ing Practice, of making their Personal Visits unto all the Families that belong unto 
their Congregations. 

Ill. That the Pastors in this Way of Proceeding, bring on their People as far 
as they can, publickly, and solemnly to Recognize the Covenant of GOD, and come 
into such a Degree of the Church-State, as they shall be willing to take their Station 


in: But not to leave off, till they shall be qualified for, and perswaded to, Com- 
munion with the Church in a@// special Ordinances. 





1 See his signature to the following document. By 1735 he was of the opinion, that ‘‘ The 
Consociation of Churches is the very Soul and Life of the Congregational Scheme . . . without 
which we must be /zdefendent, and with which all the Good of Preséyterzanism is attainable.”’ 
Dexter, Cong. as seen, p. 512. 

2 Text in C. Mather, Ratio Discipling, pp. 178, 179; and, with the signatures, in Paxoplzst, 
X: 320, 321. 


484 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


IV. That for such as have submitted unto the Government of CHRIST in any 
of His Churches, no Pastors of any other Churches, any way go to shelter them 
under their Wing, from the Désczpline of those, from whom they have not been 
fairly recommended. 

V. That they who have not actually Recognized their Subjection to the Désc7- 
pline of CHRIST in His Church, yet should, either upon their obstinate Refusal of 
such a Subjection, or their falling into other Scandals, be faithfully treated with 
proper Admonitions: About the Method and Manner of managing which Admont- 
tions, the Pastors with their several Churches, will be left unto the Exercise of their 
own Discretion. 

VI. It is desired and intended, if the Lord please, That at the General Conven- 
tion of the Ministers, there may be given in by each of the Pastors present, An 
Account of their Progress and Success in that holy Undertaking, which has been 
proposed: That so, the Lord may have the Glory of His Grace, and the Condition 
of Religion may be better known and served among us. 

VII. As a Subserviency to those Good and Great Intentions, it is proposed, 
That the Assoctations of the Ministers in the several Parts of [the] Country may be 
strengthened ; And the several Assoctations may by Letters hold more free Commu- 
nications with one another.! 

Voted and unanimously consented unto. 


Present, 
Samuel Willard, JZoderator. John Fox," 
Ebenezer Pemberton, Rowland Cotton,!? 
Benjamin Colman, Jonathan Pierpont,!? 
John Hancock,’ Jonathan Sparhawk,"4 
Thomas Blowe,—?? Joseph Belcher,?® 
Cotton Mather, John Clark,!® 
Grindal Rawson,? Benjamin Wadsworth, !" 
Nehemiah Walter,® Joseph Gerrish,!® 
Thomas Barnard,°® Peter Thatcher,!® 
James Allen,* James Sherman,”? 
Samuel Torrey,§® Jonathan Russel,?! 
Moses Fiske,?® Thomas Bridge,”? 
Joseph Green,!° John Danforth.” * 


This earnest and practical vote was reinforced by a circular 
letter sent out by the Cambridge Association in November, 1704, 
— that body serving not only as the agent by whom the resolutions 
of the Minister’s Convention were presented to the churches, but 


1 Here ends the copy in the Ratio Discipline. 


2 Lexington. 3 7, e., Thomas Blowers of Beverly. 4 Mendon. 

5 Roxbury. 6 Andover. 7 Boston First Church. & Weymouth. 
® Braintree. 10 Salem Village, now Danvers. 11 Woburn. 

12 Sandwich. 13 Reading. 14 Bristol. The name should be John. 
15 Dedham. 16 Exeter, N. H. 17 Boston First Church. 

18 Wenham. 19 Milton. 20 Sudbury. 21 Barnstable. 


22 Without charge, soon to be settled as one of the ministers of the Boston First Church, 
23 Dorchester. 


ORIGIN OF THE PROPOSALS 485 


adding exhortations even more favorable to a strengthening of 
ecclesiastical government: * 


‘“Cambridge November 6. 1704 
Dear Brethren, 

The Ministers w°® sometimes meet at Cambridge have thought it proper to enter- 
tain you w" certain proposalls agreed awhile ago, by a much greater convention of 
Ministers at Boston. 

The copy of y® proposalls here inclosed will sufficiently give you to understand 
y® intentions of them. And we have all possible reason to believe your good affec- 
tions for such intentions. : 

But that the Pastours of our Churches may more comfortably enjoy y® assistance 
of one another, w® doubtless yY all find more than a little needfull for y™ under y® 
difficulty w® in their ministry yY often meet withall, you are very sensible how usefull 
their well-formed associations may be unto y™. The most early times of New-Eng- 
land propounded and practised y™. 

Our Churches did betimes feel y® benefit of y™: and it is to be hoped, y* where 
such associations have been already formed, y¥ will be lively maintained, & preserved, 
& faithfully carried on. And where yY are not yet formed, y® Lord will stir up his 
servants to consider wt to do, yt yy may not incur y® inconveniencies of him y¢ is 
alone. 

But there is one thing more, w° has been greatly desired, & never yet so fully 
attained. It is, That y® severall associations of Ministers may uphold some commun- 
ion & correspondence w one another, & yt y¥ would freely cOmunicate unto each 
other by letters, w‘ever yY may apprehend a watchful regard unto y® great interests 
of Religion among us may call to be considered. 

It is with a speciall respect unto y* design y* y® ministers of y® Association some- 
times meeting at Cambridge, do now make y® essay; & having laid these things before 
you, do heartily recomend you & all your studies to serve him, unto y® blessing of y® 
Lord. 

They do it by y® hand of 
Syrs yor 
Sam!! Willard, moder‘. 
To y® Reverend 
to be cOmunicated.” 


The next step in the movement is obscure, owing to the loss 
of the records of the Cambridge-Boston Association and the Minis- 
ter’s Convention at this point. When the veil is once more lifted 
it is nearly a year later, Sept. 11,1705, when nine delegates, represent- 
ing the five Associations of Boston, Weymouth, Salem, Sherborne, 
and Bristol, met at Boston,’ and two days later, agreed upon the 

1 From the manuscript records of the Cambridge Association. 


2 The Dorchester church records note: ‘‘Sept. 11.1705, A meeting of y® Delegates of y* 
Associations at Boston.’’ p. 127. 


486 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


Proposals of 1705." Exactly how this committee was appointed is 
not stated, but that it was no chance coming together is shown by 
its declaration that it met “according to former agreement.” If 
conjecture may be allowed a place, it seems probable that the 
resolutions of the Ministers’ Convention of 1704, and the commen- 
datory letter by which they were accompanied, awakened a response 
which seemed to warrant further action. This action may well 
have taken the form of a vote at the Ministers’ Convention of 
May, 1705,’ favoring a further extension of associational powers, 
and naming a place and time at which representatives of the Asso- 
ciations should come together and draw up the desired scheme. 

However this may have been, the fact is certain that on Sep- 
tember 13, 1705, the following Proposals were approved by a com- 
mittee representing, for aught that we know to the contrary, all 
the Associations then existing in Massachusetts. 


THE PROPOSALS OF 1705 


Question and Proposals. 


Question. 
Hat*® further Steps are to be taken, that the* Councils may have* 
due Constitution and Efficacy in supporting, preserving and 
well ordering the Interest® of the Churches tn the Country ? 


1 The date and place and signatures are given in the copy of the Proposals printed in the 
Panoplist, X: 323. In the copy prefixed by John Wise to his Churches Quarrel Espoused the 
names are intentionally suppressed, and the phrase ‘‘ Delegates of the Associations reads ‘ Associa- 
tion,’’ implying that the committee represented one association instead of five. The Dorchester records 
give the following: “‘Sept. 13. . . . The Same Day, The Delegates or Representatives of the 
ministers of ye Associations in y® Province — y* came to Boston, agreed Sundry Things about Stated 
Councills, to be comunicated to ye Churches (& Pastors).’? p. 127. 

21 know little regarding the events of this meeeting. The date was May 31st; and 
Sewall speaks of dining with the ministers, in company with the governor and other magistrates, at 
Mr. Willard’s house (5 Col/. Mass. Hist. Soc., V1: 132). But I think we can go a little farther. 
The ‘‘ Question ’’ which the ‘‘ Proposals’’ answer was clearly not propounded by the Committee 
that drafted the Proposals. By what body was it so probably submitted to them as by the Minis- 
ters’ Convention? This origin of the ‘‘ Question’’ in the Convention of 1705 seems doubly probable 
in view of the prompt ratification of the ‘t Proposals’? which answered it by the Convention of 1706, 

3 I follow the text given by Wise, Churches Quarre/, ed. 1715 (the earliest accessible to me), 
pp. 1-4, as more nearly representing that actually laid before the churches than the text in the 
Panoplist. 

4 Panoplist omits ¢Ze. 5 Ibid. inserts ¢hezr. 6 Ibid. zzterests. 


TEXT OF THE PROPOSALS 487 


1st Part, It was Proposed, 

1st, That the Ministers of the Country form themselves into 
Associations, that may meet at proper times to Consider such 
things as may properly lie’ before them, Relating to their own 
faithfulness towards ’* each other, and the common Interest * of the 
Churches; and that each of those? Associations have a Moderator 
for a certain time, who shall continue till another be Chosen, who 
may call them together upon Emergencies. 

In these Associations, 

2dly.° ‘That Questions and Cases of importance, either pro- 
vided by themselves, or by others presented unto them, should be 
upon due deliberation Answered. 

3aly, That Advice be taken by the Associated Pastors from 
time to time, e’re they Proceed to any action® in their Particular 
Churches, which’ be likely to produce any imbroilments. That 
the Associated Pastors do Carefully and Lovingly treat each other 
with that watchfulness which may be of Universal Advantage; and 
that if any Minister be accused to the Association whereto he 
belongs, of Scandal or Heresie, the matter shall be there * examined, 
and if the Associated Ministers find just accusation ® for it, they 
shall direct to ** the Calling of a Council, by whom such an Offendor 
is to be proceeded against. 

4thly, That the Candidates of the Ministry undergo a due 
Tryal by some one or other of the Associations, concerning their 
Qualifications for the Evangelical Ministry; and that no particular 
Pastor or Congregation Imploy any one in Occasional Preaching, 
who has not been Recommended by a Testimonial under the Hands 
of some Association." 

sthly, That they should together be consulted by Bereaved 
Churches, to Recommend to them such Persons as may be fit to be 
imployed amongst ” them for present Supply, from whom they may 
in due time proceed to chuse a Pastor. 

6¢ily, That hereunto may be referred the Direction of Pro- 
ceeding * in any of their particular Churches, about the Convening 
of Councils that shall be thought necessary, for the Welfare of the 
Churches. 





1 [bid. Zay. 2 Ibid. toward. 3 Ibid. zuterests. 4 Ibid. these. 5 Ibid. inserts, /¢ zs expected. 
6 Ibid. actions. 7 Ibid. inserts, may. 8 Ibid. thus. 9 Ibid. occaszon. 10 Ibid. omits Zo. 

11 This most important section, embodying the principles of ministerial licensure which have 
since prevailed in New England, was probably drawn in substance from the Heads of Agreement, 
II: 7 (See p. 459, azz¢e). Heretofore each church had ‘licensed’? whom it would —the action of 
a local church in voting to hear any man being his warrant to preach. The importance of the change 
here proposed is attested by its permanence, 

12 Panoplist, among. 13 Ibid. proceedings. 


488 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


7/ily, ‘That the several Associations in the Country, maintain 
a due Correspondence with one another, that so the state of Religion 
may be better known and secured’ in all the Churches, and partic- 
ularly it is thought necessary to the well-being of these Churches, 
that all the Associations of * the Country meet together by their 
Respective Delegates once in a year.’ 

8thly, And finally, That Ministers Disposed* to Associate, en- 
deavour in the most efficacious manner they can, to Prevail with 
such Ministers as unreasonably neglect such Meetings with their 
Brethren in their proper Associations, that they would not expose 
themselves to the Inconveniencies that such Neglects cannot but 


be attended withal. 
Second Part, [t ts Proposed, 


ist. That these Associated Pastors, with a proper Number of 
Delegates from their several Churches, be formed into a standing 
or stated Council, which shall Consult, Advise and Determine all 
Affairs that shall be proper matter for the Consideration of an 
Ecclesiastical Council within their respective Limits, except 
always, the Cases are such as the Associated Pastors ° judge more 
convenient to fall under the Cognizance of some other Council. 

2a@/y, That to this end these Associated Pastors, with their 
Respective Churches, shall Consociate and Combine according to 
what has been by the Synods of these Churches recommended, that 
they act as Consociated Churches in all holy Watchfulness and 
Helpfulness towards each other; and that each Church choose and 
depute one or more to Attend their Pastor,*° as Members of the 
Council in their Stated Sessions, or occasionally, as Emergencies 
shall call for. 

3dly, That these Messengers from the several Consociated 
Churches shall be chosen once a year at the least. 

Athly, It is propounded, as that which from our beginning has. 
been Recommended, that the Churches thus Consociated for these 
purposes, have a stated time to meet in their Council, and once in 
a year seems little enough, that they may Inquire into the Condi- 
tion of the Churches, and Advise such things as may be for the’ 
Advantage of our holy Religion. But the more particular time is 
best left to the Determination of each respective Association. 

5thly, That the Associations® shall Direct when there is 
Occasion for this Council to Convene, on any Emergency, and shall 





1 Tbid. served. 2 Ibid. zz. 
3 [bid. adds, zo concert matters of contmion concern to all the churches. 
4 Ibid. adds ¢hus. 5 Ibid. adds may. 8 Ibid. Pastors. 7 Ibid. adds common. 


8 Ibid. Association. 


TEXD OF <THE PROPOSALS 489 


direct whether the whole, or only a certain Number of these Con- 
sociated Pastors and Churches shall Convene on such Occasions. 

6¢ily, It appears agreeable to the present Condition of our 
Churches, and from our beginnings acknowledged, That no Act of* 
the Councils are to be reckoned? as Concluded and decisive, for 
which there has not been the Concurrence of the Major part of the 
Pastors therein concerned. 

7thly, ‘The Determinations of the Councils thus Provided, for 
the necessities of the Churches, are to be looked upon as final and 
decisive, except agrieved Churches and Pastors,* have weighty 
Reasons to the contrary, in which Cases there should be Provision 
for a further hearing; and it seems proper that the Council Con- 
vened on this occasion, should consist of such Pastors* as may be 
more for number than the former, and® they should be such, as 
shall be directed to, and convened for this purpose by the Minis- 
ters of an® Association, near to that whereto these of the former 
Council belonged, unto which the agrieved should according apply 
themselves, and in this way expect a final Issue. 

8¢hly, If a particular Church will not be Reclaimed by Council 
from such gross Disorders as plainly hurt the common Interest’ 
of Christianity, and are not meer tolerable differences in Opinion, but 
are plain Sins against the Command & Kingdom of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, the Council is to declare that Church no longer fit for Com- 
munion with the Churches of the Faithful; and the Churches rep- 
resented in the Council, are to Approve, Confirm and Ratifie the 
Sentence, and with-draw from the Communion of the Church that 
would not be healed: Nevertheless, if any Members of the dis- 
orderly Church, do not justifie their Disorders, but suitably testifie 
against them, these are still to be received to the wonted Com- 
munion by* the Churches; and if after® due waiting, the Church 
be not recovered, they may upon [ Advice|’® be actually taken in as 
Members of some other Church in the Vicinity. 

These Proposals were’ Assented to by the Delegates of the 
Association,” meet according to former Agreement, at 4.——"* Sef- 
tember 13th. 1705. To be Commended to the several Associated 
Ministers ** in the several parts of the Country, to be duly Con- 
sidered, that so, what may be judged for the Service of our Great 
Lord, and his Holy Churches, may be further Proceeded in.” 


1 Ibid. Acts 7x. 2 Ibid. recezved. 3 Ibid. or persons. 

4 Ibid. adds and Churches, a more probable reading. 

5 Ibid. adds ¢hat. 6 Ibid. azy. 7 Ibid. zzterests. 8 Ibid. of 9 Ibid. adds add, 
10 Ibid. reads (upon fit advice), evidently a better reading. 11 [bid. ave. 

12 Thid. Assoczations, a better reading. 13 Ibid. Boston. 


14 Ibid. Associations and Ministers, a better reading, 


490 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


[Thus far both texts agree ; but here the AZather-Panoplist text adds the signa- 
tures and endorsement as follows. ] 


“Samuel Willard, JZod. 
Cotton Mather, Boston? 
Ebenezer Pemberton.’ 
Samuel Torry,’ 
John Danforth,’ eA Akt 
Samuel Cheever,’ 
Joseph Gerrish,° 
Grindal Rawson,’ Sherburne. 
Samuel Danforth’® for Bristol Assoczation. 


Salem. 


Further approved and confirmed, and a resolution to pursue, 
with the Divine assistance, in all suitable methods, the intention 
of the said proposals:— By a General Convention of the Ministers 


at Boston; 30d. 3m. 1706. 
Attested by 


SAMUEL WILLARD, Mod.” 
[Instead of the signatures and endorsement, the Wise text ends thus. ] 


“At an Association-Meeting, the fore-going Proposals were Read 
and Assented to, &c. Present,” 
VOOR LIOR 


There is nothing necessarily inconsistent between the two. 
It is evident that the resolutions were approved by the committee 
of the five Associations on September 13, 1705. What Wise used 
would appear to be a circular letter to the churches; and, from its 
concluding clause, a circular sent out with the added endorsement 
of an Association. Unfortunately Wise’s refusal to give the names 
of the members present makes it impossible to say which the As- 
sociation was, but in view of the importance of the Cambridge- 
Boston body, and its agency in 1704 in sending and recommending 
the action of the Ministers’ Convention of that year to the 
churches, it can hardly be doubted that that was the body which 


1 Pemberton was now associated with Willard in the ministry of the Third Boston Church, 

2 7. e., in the name of the Boston Association, identical with the Cambridge body. 

3 Weymouth. 4 Dorchester. 5 Marblehead. 6 Wenham. 

7 Mendon, 8 Taunton. 9 May 30. 

10 Wise declares, ‘‘ where the Place was, or the Persons who were present in this Randezvouze, 
shall never be told by me, unless it be Extorted by the Rack.’’ Churches Quarrel, ed. 1715, Pp. 115 


WHY DID THEY PARTLY FAIL? 49QI 


approved the resolutions on November 5.’ The formal approval 
by the Ministers’ Convention followed on May 30, 1706. 

Doubtless the influence of the Mathers had much to do with 
these proceedings, though their hand does not conspicuously ap- 
pear. But in view of the agency of five Associations in their 
composition, and the approval of the Proposals by the body repre- 
sentative of all the Massachusetts ministers, it is hardly just to 
affirm with Prof. Tyler that “the document was understood to 
have been the work of the two Mathers, backed by a coterie of 
Clerieapadmirers,’* nor have Drs. J. S. Clark* or H) M.; Dexter‘ 
spoken with their accustomed accuracy in representing the Profos- 
als as the device of Cambridge-Boston Association alone. They 
represented a wide-spread feeling in favor of stricter church gov- 
ernment, a feeling which such liberal sympathizers as Ebenezer 
Pemberton and Benjamin Colman shared. So far from being the 
work of a faction, it would be hard to show what elements of then 
existent Boston Congregationalism were unrepresented in their 
production. 

If, then, a large portion of the ministers of Massachusetts 
desired the establishment of stricter church government, why did 
these propositions fail to produce greater results? The first por- 
tion, relating to the formation of ministerial associations, was 
largely put in practice; the second part, with its recommendation 
of standing councils, remained a dead letter. Probably the reasons 
have been as well stated by Cotton Mather as by any one. Speak- 
ing of the first part, he says:° 

‘““These Proposals have not yet been in all regards wz7¢versally complied withal. 


Nevertheless, the Country is full of Associations, formed by the Pastors in their several 
Vicinities, for the Prosecution of Zvangelical Purposes.” 


1 Little weight can be laid on the point, but it is interesting to note that Nov. 5, 1705, wasa 
Monday, the regular meeting day of the Cambridge Association. 

2 It has doubtless been observed that the name of Increase Mather is seen in none of the 
lists of signers, as far as known. 

3 Hist. of American Literature, 11: 106. Prof. Tyler falls into the further error of saying 
that it was issued without any signature attached. 

4 Sketch of the Cong. Churches in Mass., p. 115. 

5 Congregationalism, as seen in its Literature, 491-494. Dr. Dexter’s treatment of the 
whole matter is unsatisfactory, and chronologically reversed, in that he discusses the Saybrook 
Platform before the Proposals. References a few pages on show that he was acquainted with the 
Panofpiist text, but he could not have had it in mind while writing this passage; nor does he seem 
to have noticed the signatures or the approval by Convention. 6 Ratio, p. 181. 


492 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


= 


And after outlining the scheme of standing councils, he adds:’ 


‘*Such Proposals as these found in one of the Vew-uglish Colonies? a more 
general Reception (and even a Countenance from the Civil Government) than in the 
Rest. In the other,* there were some very considerable Persons among the JZ/z77s- 
ters, as well as of the Brethren, who thought the Liberties of particular Churches 
to be in danger of being too much “mzted and infringed in them. And in a Defer- 
ence to these Good Men, the Proposals were never prosecuted, beyond the Bounds 
of meer Proposals, . . . There was indeed a Satyr, Printed against these zw77?- 
ten Proposals, and against the Servants of GOD that made them. Nevertheless, 
those Followers of the Lamb, remembring the Maxim of, Vot Answering, used the 
Conduct which the University of 7e/mstadt lately prescribed under some Abuses put 
upon them; Visum est non alio Remedio quam generoso Silentio et pio Contemptu, 
ulendum nobis esse.” 

Mather’s reference is of course to the brilliant attack on these 
Proposals put forth in 1710 by Rev. John Wise of what is now 
Essex, Mass., but was then known as Chebacco parish in Ipswich, 
under the title of Zhe Churches Quarrel Espoused, etc.; and which 
Wise followed in 1717 by a powerful exposition of what he believed 
to be the system set forth in the Cambridge Platform, the Vindica- 
tion of the Government of New England Churches. ‘The vigor and 
cogency of these tracts has been justly praised.* They are cer- 
tainly the most able exposition of the democratic principles which 
modern Congregationalism has come to claim as its own that the 
eighteenth century produced. Yet, without abating the respect 
due to Wise for his work, or minimizing the influence which his 
books exercised on political thought when republished on the eve 
of the revolutionary war, it may justly be questioned whether their 
effect in bringing to naught the Proposals in Massachusetts has 
not been rated higher than it should.® Wise’s satire was not pub- 
lished till four years after the ratification of the Proposals by the 
Massachusetts Convention, and not till two years after Connecticut 
had inaugurated a similar system. Some influence other than the 
Churches Quarrel Espoused roust have hindered, or the scheme 
would have come into practice long before that tract was given to 
the world. Mather clearly indicates another reason than the work 


1 Jézd., pp. 184, 185. 2 Connecticut. 3 Massachusetts. 

4 See Clark, Wzst. Sketch Cong. Chs. in Mass., pp. 115-121; Tyler, Hist. American Litera- 
ture, 11: 104-116; Dexter, Cong. as seen, pp. 493-502. 

5 E. g., by the writers cited in the previous note. 


NO LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT 493 


of Wise, The Proposals in Massachusetts were opposed by “some 
very considerable Persons,” both lay and clerical; and, what is 
even more important, they were not supported by the legislature, 
as the similar propositions were in Connecticut. Here, then, was 
the real point of break-down. As will be shown, the Saybrook 
Articles met with plentiful opposition, but they had the power of 
the General Court behind them, and were therefore put into prac- 
tice. In Massachusetts, on the other hand, the civil authorities 
stood aloof, and without legislative support it was impossible to 
introduce the stricter system in either colony. Nothing could 
have been more diverse than the legislative situation in the two 
colonies. Probably the General Court of Connecticut was never 
in a state more favorable to the enactment of an ecclesiastical 
constitution than in 1708, It was still under its semi-independent 
charter, able to choose its own upper House and governor. That 
governor was a minister, Gurdon Saltonstall, warmly attached to 
the church system of the colony, popular alike with his ministerial 
associates and with the legislature, and a believer in the desira- 
bility of a stricter organization of the churches. The Connecticut 
Court had long been accustomed to interfere in the affairs of the 
churches; such interference was not unpopular with as represent- 
ative men as the trustees of Yale College.’ 

The situation of the Massachusetts General Court was far 
different. ‘That body had received an entirely new constitution in 
1692, and one that practically ended the old-time clerical influence. 
The lower House was still chosen by the people; but the upper 
House, though nominated by the General Court, was subject to | 
the veto power of the governor, a veto freely exercised;’? and the 
governor was of royal appointment, with authority to reject all 
bills distasteful to him. The governor at this time was the noto- 
rious Joseph Dudley, no friend to the Congregational churches of 
Massachusetts, whose religious position may be judged by a letter 
to the Lords of Trade in England, of July, 1704, in which he com- 


1 See their proposition of 1703 requesting the ministers to unite in an appeal to the General 
Court to approve a confession of faith, in the next section of this chapter (p. 498). 

2 In 1703 Dudley rejected 5 nominations, in 1704, 2, and in 1706, 2. Palfrey, IV: 253, 254, 291, 
299. 


494 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


plains that the Court used its right of nomination to the upper 
House ‘to affront every loyal and good man that loves the Church 
of England and dependence on her Majesty’s government”? and 
who, while not wholly cutting loose from the Roxbury Congrega- 
tional church of which he was a member, worshiped much in the 
Boston Episcopal chapel, and signed a petition to the archbishop 
of Canterbury, in 1703, in which he and his associates are styled 
“the members of the Church at Boston.”? ‘The upper House, too, 
which in Connecticut we shall see readily passed the Saybrook bill, 
was not likely in Massachusetts to be so compliant with the wishes 
of the ministers. Its membership was largely from Boston and 
the immediate vicinity, and there was already growing up in the 
commercial and governmental center of Massachusetts a class 
more influenced by trade and crown appointments than desire to 
maintain the discipline of the churches of the colony or the old 
spirit of political independence. The Proposals of 1705 could not, 
in any reasonable probability, have passed the Massachusetts legis- 
lature; and failing of legislative support there was enough opposi- 
tion both in that colony and Connecticut to prevent the establish- 
ment of any similar system. That the ecclesiastical development 
of Massachusetts and Connecticut in the last century ran in di- 
vergent paths was due, in no small degree, to the differing character 
of their respective governors and General Courts. 


The Proposals, which thus came to naught as far as Massa- 
chusetts was concerned, had a posthumous fame for a brief period 
at the beginning of the Unitarian controversy more than a hundred 
years later. Though printed as late as 1772,° they had been for- 
gotten; and when discovered in manuscript by Prof. William Jenks 
and communicated to the General Association of Massachusetts 
Proper* at its meeting at Dorchester in June, 1814,° they were 
thought by some to be exactly suited to the distracted state of the 

1 [bid., p. 292. 2 [bid., pp. 297, 298. 3 In Wise’s works, see ante, p. 463. 


4 7. e., exclusive of Maine. It is the present ‘‘ General Association,”’ 
5 For the literature of this discussion, see azfe, p. 463. 


THE PROPOSALS IN 1814 495 


churches then existing, and were accordingly referred to a com- 
mittee for further report. That report was made at the Associa- 
tion’s meeting at Royalston in June, 1815, by Rev. Dr. Jedidiah 
Morse of Charlestown, and after giving such facts regarding the 
Proposals as were accessible to the committee, declared that the 
propositions were “in various respects such, that in their [the 
committee’s] opinion congregational ministers cannot consistently 


991 


recommend or approve them. The committee then proposed a 
plan of its own for stricter church government, which after lying 
over a year, was given a timid vote of approval that amounted 
practically to a burial. All efforts to strengthen the ecclesiastical 


government of Massachusetts had failed. 


Ahoy Le 
THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM OF 1708 


While the events just considered were in progress in Massa- 
chusetts, a similar movement, to some extent induced by the pro- 
ceedings in the older colony, was in progress in Connecticut. The 
Half-Way controversy had resulted in 1669 in the toleration of 
some divergence in ecclesiastical usage “vntill better light in an 
orderly way doth appeare”’;? but the same differences of opinion 
which had been shown in the questions propounded by the General 
Court in 1666° continued, and the low state of religion which 
marked the closing years of the seventeenth century led to much 
discipline and not a little quarrel in the churches.* The feeling 
was widespread throughout the colony, and the adjacent parts of 
Massachusetts,*® that some strengthening of church-government 
was desirable, for the same reasons that it was sought in the 
vicinity of Boston. 

The movement which led to the Saybrook Synod in Connec- 
ticut ran parallel to and was in considerable degree conducted by 


1 Panoplist, X1: 360. 2 See ante, p. 277. 

3 Conn. Records, II: 54, 55; and axte, p. 274. 

4 Compare Trumbull, Cozzecticut, ed. 1818, 1: 480. 

5 See Stoddard’s views, for instance, /xzstztuted Churches, p. 28. 


496 THE:.PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


men who were engaged in founding Yale College, and these men 
were in turn affiliated in some measure with those in eastern Mas- 
sachusetts who were seeking a stricter church government. The 
connection between the founding of Yale College and the party 
about Boston who were opposed to the liberalizing of Harvard and 
the rejection of the influence of the Mathers has been pressed too 
far by President Quincy,’ and it has been clearly shown that the 
desire of the ministers of Connecticut, long cherished especially in 
the coast towns of the old New Haven colony, that they might 
have “a nearer and less expensive seat of learning,’ amply ac- 
counts for the establishment of the Connecticut college. It had 
its birth independently of Boston ecclesiastical quarrels. But 
while thus moved by Connecticut rather than Massachusetts in- 
terests, the men who founded Yale College in 1701 were in active 
sympathy with the conservative party in Boston. Evidence of 
this cordiality of feeling is ample. ‘The earliest document in the 
archives of the college is a beautifully written “Scheme for a 
College” endorsed in Cotton Mather’s handwriting,* and though 
its proposals were not adopted, it manifests that active interest 
which Cotton Mather always felt in the institution, and which led 
him, in 1718, to secure the benefactions from Elihu Yale which 
carried the college through its severest struggles and led to 
the bestowal upon it, at Mather’s suggestion, of the name “ Yale.”* 
A second fact shows that this interest was not one-sided. On 
August 7, 1701, “the first fixed date”’® in the history of Yale Col- 


1 Quincy, History of Harvard University, ed. 1840, 1: 197-200, says: ‘‘ The projectors of 
it [Yale] were aware of the advantage which would result to their seminary, should it be made satis- 
factory to the predominant religious party in Massachusetts. . . . They took their measures accord- 
ingly.’? But Kingsley, in his review of Quincy’s work (Bzdlical Repository, July, Oct., 1841, Jan., 
1842), has made it plain that the impulse did not go out from Massachusetts. It may be queried, 
however, whether in his zeal to answer Quincy, Kingsley did not minimize the real sympathy which 
existed between the conservatives at Boston and the founders in Connecticut. See also Woolsey, 
Hist. Discourse . . . before .. . Yale College . . . ro years after the founding, 
New Haven, 1850, with a very valuable appendix of documents; Prof. F. B. Dexter, Founding of 
Vale College, Papers of New Haven Hist. Soc., V1: 1-31; Prof. S. E. Baldwin, Eccles. Consti- 
tution of Yale College, [bid., 111: 405-410. 

2 Prof. Dexter, as cited, p. 3. See also Woolsey, Discourse, p. 7. 

3 Certainly older than Sept., 1701. See Prof. Dexter, as cited, p. 4. The document is pro- 
fessedly anonymous. Text in Woolsey, Discourse, pp. 83-86. It was addressed to Rev. Messrs. 
Noyes, Buckingham, and Pierpont. 

4 Letters in Quincy, Hist. Harvard Univ., 1: 524-527. 

5 Prof. Dexter, as cited, p. 5. The letter is lost. 


YALE COLLEGE FOUNDED 497 


lege, the ministers most concerned in its founding, Israel Chauncy 
of Stratford, Thomas Buckingham of Saybrook, Abraham Pierson 
of Killingworth, James Pierpont of New Haven, and Gurdon Sal- 
tonstall of New London, wrote to Isaac Addington, secretary of 
Massachusetts colony, and to his friend, Judge Samuel Sewall, 
both men of strong conservative sympathies in religion, asking for 
the draft of a charter for the proposed college. To this request 
Addington and Sewall responded, furnishing the desired paper, 
and accompanying it by a letter dated October 6, 1701, in which 
they say:’ 

‘“ We should be very glad to hear of flourishing schools and a College at Connec- 
ticut, and it would be some relief to us against the sorrow we have conceived for the 
decay of them in this | Massachusetts] province.” 

The draft of the charter was indeed seriously modified by its 
recipients, and the clauses by which Addington and Sewall would 


have secured orthodoxy by the prescription of certain text-books — 


were stricken out in the charter granted to the college by the Con- 
necticut General Court;* but these communications show to whom 
in Massachusetts the founders of Yale turned for sympathy. Nor 
is this all. In the period between the application for a form of a 
charter and its receipt, Increase Mather wrote, by reason of the 
request of an unnamed Connecticut minister, setting forth some 
suggestions for the organization of the college, and declaring that 
he had also written on the same subject to Rev. Thomas Bucking- 
ham of Saybrook.*® These letters are sufficient to show the degree 
of cordiality and ready communication existing between the lead- 
ing Connecticut ministers and the conservative party about Boston. 

Yale College having been organized with four of the five min- 
isters who wrote to Addington and Sewall as its trustees,* and with 


them Rev. Messrs. James Noyes of Stonington, Samuel Mather of 


1 Letter in Woolsey, Discourse, pp. 91, 92; their draft, 7dzd., pp. 92-94. 

2 The Charter of Yale College is dated ‘t Oct? 9: 1701,’’ the day of the assembly of the Gen- 
eral Court. It was probably enacted the 16th. See Prof. Dexter, Bzog. Sketches of the Graduates 
of Yale, pp. 2-5, where the full text is given, Addington and Sewall had proposed that the West- 
minster Confession and Ames’s Wedulla Theologie, should be required studies, The founders seem 
to have had no objection to their use, but \preferred to put the prescription in the by-laws rather 
than the charter. See Laws of 1726 (probably much older) in Prof. Dexter’s Biog. Sketches, p. 349. 

3 Letter dated ‘‘ Boston, Sept. 15, 1701,'’ in Woolsey, Discourse, pp. 86, 87. 

4 Gurdon Saltonstall, then of New London, was not included, 


ar 


498 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


Windsor, Samuel Andrew of Milford, Timothy Woodbridge of 
Hartford, Noadiah Russell of Middletown, and Joseph Webb of 
Fairfield, its trustee meetings became altogether the most repre- 
sentative ecclesiastical gatherings in the colony. ‘The assembled 
ministers soon discussed other matters than college business. As 
a result, at their meeting at Guilford in 1703 they sent forth the 
following circular letter, to sound the churches as to the desirability 
of a united confession of faith, the first step, as far as can be ascer- 
tained, toward the Saybrook Synod. 


‘* Att a meeting of Sundry Elders 
held at Guilford mar: 17. 170%. 

It being an hopefull expedient for securing y® truths of our Religion, both to 
our people, & their & our Posterity, & that w® may w" y® divine Blessing tend to our 
preservation from heresie, & Apostasie, w'in we have y® Godly examples of our 
Christian Brethren in other parts, & Provinces ; y"fore we canot but earnestly desire 
& intreat, yt our Brethren in y® Ministry of y® Gospel w*in this Colony would as we 
have done well peruse y® assemblies Confession of Faith, as also yt made by y® Synod 
held at Boston may 12, 1680 & manifest in convenient season y" concurrence w'* us 
in addressing our Religious Government, as soon as we may be prepared, y* they 
would please to recommend to our people & y"™ posterity y® following Confession of 
Faith, viz, y' agreed upon by y® Rever*. assembly at Westminster, as it is comprised 
in & Represented by y® Confession made by y® Synod in Boston May 12. 1680. & 
printed by yt Governm'. & we request you? signifye y* minds to y® Rev’. Mr. Buck- 
ingham in Say=Brook, Mt Woodbridge in Hartford, Mt Davenport in Stratford, 
& m'. Andrew, or Pierpont in Milford or N=Haven, yt so from you we may under- 
stand how far y’ is a generall concurrence in y® p’mises.! 

Abrah: Pierson 
Tho: Buckingham 
T : Woodbridge 
James Pierp[on]t 
Noadiah Russel 
Sam! Russel ? 
Tho: Ruggles.” § 


What response this appeal elicited cannot be affirmed with 
definiteness. But it shows clearly the drift of thought among the 
leading ministers of Connecticut, though the absence of record 


1 From the manuscript in the archives of Yale University. Clap, Axnals . . . of Vale 
College, New Haven, 1766, p. 12, represented this as a proposition for a general synod of all Connec- 
ticut churches, and Trumbull (Conzecticut, 1: 478), who follows him, copies his declaration that 
there were county meetings in consequence, which prepared the way immediately for the Saybrook 
synod by adopting the Westminster confession and drawing up rules for church discipline ; but both 
are unwarranted inferences from the paper here given. 

2 Of Branford, Conn., elected trustee of Yale in 1701 after the granting of the charter. 

3 The minister at Guilford at whose house the meeting was held. He was not a trustee. 


STEPS TOWARD A SYNOD 499 


makes it impossible to say what steps were next taken. It is not 
till five years later that we again find light. Meanwhile the 
attempts of the ecclesiastical leaders of Massachusetts to establish 
standing councils had borne fruit in 1705 and 1706, and cannot 
have been unfamiliar to their friends in Connecticut.’ The 
thought of the ministers of Connecticut turned toward something 
more than the approval of a confession of faith, they would now 
couple with it the establishment of a system of stricter government 
like that attempted in Massachusetts. And, in December, 1707, 
an event well-nigh without a parallel in American history occurred; 
a leading minister of the colony, Gurdon Saltonstall of New Lon- 
don, was called directly from the pulpit to the governor’s chair,— 
a post which he continued to fill till his death in 1724. Saltonstall 
had experienced in his own pastorate the evils of a church quarrel,’ 
and on his election to the governorship it would appear that the 
movement for stricter government went more rapidly forward.’ 
Sometime between May 13 and 22, 1708, the following bill was in- 
troduced into and passed the upper House, of which the governor 
was thena member. In its original form it called, apparently, only for 
assemblages of ministers;* but somewhere in its passage, either in 
the upper House, or more probably among the representatives of 
the towns who passed it on May 24th,° the statute was amended 
so as to summon the brethren of the churches as well as their 
pastors, and thus render the bodies for which it called truly synods:° 

‘* This Assembly, from their own observation and from the complaint of many 
others, being made sensible of the defects of the discipline of the churches of this 
government, arising from the want of a more explicite asserting the rules given for 
that end in the holy scriptures, from which would arise a firm establishment amongst 
ourselves, a good and regular issue in cases subject to ecclesiastical discipline, glory 


to Christ our head, and edification to his members, hath seen fit to ordein and 
require, and it is by authoritie of the same ordeined and required, that the ministers 


1 No further proof is needed than that the Saybrook Articles are taken to some extent ver- 
bally from the Proposals of 1705. 

2 Caulkins, 7st. of New London, 1852, p. 377. 

3 Stiles, Discourse on the Christian Union, Boston, 1761, p. 69, is doubtless correct in the 
s.atement that the endorsement of the Connecticut legislature to the proposition for the Saybrook 
synod was procured ‘‘ very much through the influences of the honorable Gurdon Saltonstall, Esq.; 
Governor of the colony.”’ 

4 Bacon, Discourse in Cont. Eccles. Hist. Conn., p. 33, shows that the clause calling for the 
messengers of the churches was interlined in the original bill at some time during its passage. 

OLOZA.5 Da32s 6 Conn. Records, V: 51. 


500 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


of the churches in the several counties of this government shall meet together at their 
respective countie towns, with such messengers as the churches to which they belong 
shall see cause to send with them! on the last Monday in June next,” there to con- 
sider and agree upon those methods and rules for the management of ecclesiastical 
discipline which by them shall be judged agreeable and comformable to the word of 
God, and shall at the same meeting appoint two or more of their number to be their 
delegates, who shall all meet together at Saybrook, at the next Commencement to be 
held there, when they shall compare the results of the ministers of the several 
counties,* and out of and from them to draw a form of ecclesiastical discipline which 
by two or more persons delegated by them shall be offered to this Court at their ses- 
sions at Newhaven in October next, to be considered of and confirmed by them, and 
that the expence of the above mentioned meetings be defrayed out of the publick 
treasury of this Colonie.” 

Pursuant to this order, the representatives of the churches of 
each county met, though no records of their doings have survived.’ 
By these councils, ministers and delegates were chosen to be 
present at the anniversary of the infant college, and naturally con- 
venience, together with the prominence of the men involved, 
brought it about that eight of the twelve ministers thus selected to 
represent the Connecticut churches were trustees of the college.‘ 
The ministerial element was in the decided predominance. The 
messengers from New London County to the Saybrook Synod were 
two, while Hartford and Fairfield Counties sent one each, and New 
Haven was represented by no laymen. Doubtless other brethren 
were appointed who did not appear at the meeting. But there is 
no reason to hold that the body which gathered at Saybrook Sept. 
9, 1708, was not fairly able to voice the sentiments of the Con- 
necticut churches as a whole.® 

Of the course of discussion we know nothing; but its results 


are evident. The Synod recommended that the Savoy Confession, 





1 See p. 499, note 4. 

2 June 28, 1708. 

8 This clause also suggests that the invitation of representatives of the brethren was an 
afterthought. 

4 The Preface to the Articles says, ** These several Councils having met and drawn up some 
Rules of Church Government did by their Delegates meet and Constitute one General Assembly,” 
etc., ed. 1710, p. 96. The meeting at New London was ordered to choose a minister for Lebanon, 
and that at Fairfield one for Stratford, by the paternal legislature. Conn. Records, V: 54. 

5 Compare Dr. G. L. Walker, /7zst. First Ch. Hartford, p. 265. 

6 Dr. Bacon, Cont. Eccles. Hist. Conn., pp. 38, 39, is inclined to dispute this, but without 
very adequate ground. 


MEETING OF THE SYNOD 5Ol 


as adopted by the Massachusetts Synod of 1680,’ should be the 
doctrinal basis of the Connecticut churches. This action was 
simply the carrying out of the suggestion which many of the same 
ministers had already made in 1703.7 To formulate rules for 
church government was not so easy, however, and here the result, 
though unanimous, must be regarded as a partial compromise.* 
The Synod adopted the Heads of Agreement,* which had been 
widely circulated in New England and lauded by the Mathers as 
the best exposition of Congregationalism. This constitution 
formed the more liberal side of the Saybrook result, the side 
appealed to in later times by those who wished to minimize its strict- 
ness.° But to affirm them alone would not have given the stricter 
government which the legislature desired. The Synod, therefore, 
compared the various drafts prepared by the county councils,°® 
and adopted that presented by the New Haven delegates, though 
with modifications suggested by the more Presbyterianly inclined 
representatives of Hartford.” The result was the fifteen Articles 
Jor the Administration of Church Discipline. To all the documents, 
Confession, Heads of Agreement, and Articles, the Synod appended 
proof texts. Fortunately a very early copy of its minutes has 


been preserved and is:as follows:’ 


1 See ante, pp. 367-402. 2 See ante, p. 408. 
3 Noah Hobart of Fairfield wrote, Attempt to Illustrate . . . The Eccles. Constitution 
of the Consoctated Chs. . . . of Conn., New Haven, 1765, p. 8: ‘‘a man must be a perfect 


Stranger to the Principles and Temper of that Time, who is capable of supposing that either of 
these Parts of our Constitution [the Heads of Agreement and Articles], taken singly or without its 
Connection with the other, would have been unanimously agreed upon and consented to by that 
body of men.”’ 

4 See ante, pp. 456-462. 

5 EF. g. [Thomas Fitch] An Laplanation of Say-Brook Platform, Hartford, 1765, pp. 3, 4: 
‘Tf there be any expressions of one of those parts of the constitution, which seem to be inconsistent 
with some expressions in the other, in that case, the articles of discipline are to be so explained and 
understood, as to comport and agree with the heads of agreement, and not vice versa.” 

6 Preface to ed. 1710, p. 96. 

7 Rev. Chauncey Whittelsey of New Haven wrote of Rev. (and later Pres.) Ezra Stiles, Mch. 
4, 1761, ‘‘Mr. Noyes [pastor at New Haven 1716-1761] has told me that he understood, that the 
Draught of New-Haven County, (which was chiefly made by Mr. Pierpont [pastor at New Haven 
1684-1714]) was mainly preferred; but some Clauses put into it, in Conformity to Mr. Woodbridge 
of Hartford and some others, who were inclined to the Presbyteryan Side.’? MS. Coll. of Yale 
University. See also Stiles, Chrzstian Union, p. 70. 

8 MS. Records of Hartford North Association. This, or a similar, copy was followed by 
Trumbull, Connecticut, 1: 482-486. 


502 


THE SAYBROOK 


THE, PROPOSALS AND |THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


MEETING AND ARTICLES 


“At a Meeting of the Delegates from the Councills of the 
Several Countys of Connecticutt Colony In N: England In America 


at Saybrook Sep. 9™ 1708. 


Present 
From the Councill of MHartf* 
County 
Timothy Woodbridge’ 
The | Noadiah Russell? 
hee | Stephen Mix? 
Messeng™ Jn° Haynes Esq'* 
From the Councill of Fairfeild 
County 
ihe Charles Chauncey’ 
Rev? ( Jn° Davenport’ 
Messen’ Deacon Sam" Hoit’ 
From the Council of N: London 
County: 
James Noyes’ 


The | Thos Buckingham? 
Rev‘ | Moses Noyes” 

Jn° Woodward” 

. § Robert Chapman” 
BARES Deacon W™ Parker” 








Present 
From*) the * Council 
Haven County: 


of New 


The Sam!” Andrew™ 
Reve James Pierpont’® 
Sam" Russell’® 
James pee) Being 
‘Ee & Chosen 
Rev? | Tho® Buck- r wodeene 
ingham J tors. 
Stephen Mix } { 
ibe | and Pen 
Rev‘ ] Jn®? Wood- | Chee 
Scribes. 
ward 


In complyance w® an ord’ of 
the Gen" Assembly May 13 1708 
After Humble Addresses to the 
Throne of Grace for the Divine 
presence assistance and Bless- 
ing upon us, having our Eyes 


upon the word of God and the Constitution of our Chhs for the 
advancment of Gods Glory and the further order and edification 
of our Chhs, 

We agree that the Confession of faith owned & Consented 
unto by the Elders and Messengers of the Chhs assembled at Bos- 
ton In New England May 12 1680 being the Second Session of 
that Synod be Recomended to the Hon™ the Gen" Assembly of 
this Colony at the next Session for their Publick testimony thereto 
as the faith of the Chhs of this Colony. 

Wee agree also that the Heads of Agreement assented to by 


i 





1 Hartford First Church, trustee of Yale. 

3 Wethersfield. 4 Of Hartford. 

6 Stamford. 7 Of Stamford. 

9 Saybrook, trustee. 10 Lyme, trustee. 

12 Of Saybrook. 13 Also of Saybrook. 
15 New Haven, trustee. 46 Branford, trustee. 


2 Middletown, trustee. 
5 Stratfield, now Bridgeport. 
8 Stonington, trustee. 
11 Norwich. 
14 Milford, trustee. 


THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 503 


the vnited Ministers formerly Called Presbyterian & Congrega- 
tionall be observed by the Chhs throout this Colony. 

And for the Better Regulation of the Administration of Chh. 
Discipline In Relation to all Cases Ecclesiasticall both In Particu- 
lar Chhs and In Councills to the full Determining and Executing 
of the Rules in all such Cases 

It is agreed 

impr. That the Elder or Eld™ of a particular Chh w™ the 
Consent of the Brethren of the Same have power and ought to 
exercise Chh Discipline according to the Rule of Gods word in 
Relation to all Scandals that fall out win the same. And it may 
be meet in all Cases of Difficulty for the Respective Past™ of Par- 
ticular Chhs to take advice of the Eld™ of the Chhs In the Neigh- 
bourhood before they proceed to Censure in such Cases.’ 

2. That the Chhs w™ are Neighbouring each to other shall 
consociate for the mutuall affording to each other such assistance 
as may be requisite upon all occasions ecclesiasticall:? And that 
the particular Past’* & Chhs within the Respective Countys in this 
Government shall be one Consociation (or more if they judge 
meet) for the end afores?. 

3. That all Cases of Scandall that fall out win the Circuit of 
any of the afores’ Consociations shall be bro’t to a council of the 
Eld*® and also Messeng™ of the Chhs w"in the s? Circuit, i: e. y? Chhs 
of one Consociation if they see cause to send Messeng™ when their 
[there] shall be need of a Council for the Determination of them. 

4. That according to the comon practice of our Chhs nothing 
shall be Deemed an act or judgment of any Council which hath 
not the Maj’ part of the Eld™ present concurring and such a num- 
ber of the Messeng™ present as make the Majority of the Council: 
provided that if any Chh shall not see Cause to send any Messeng" 
to the Council or the persons chosen by them shall not attend; 
neither of these shall be any obstruction to the proceedings of the 
Council or Invalidate any of their acts ° 


1 Compare Proposal of 1705, Pt. 1, sec. 3, azte, p. 487. 

2 The compilers of Congregational Order (1843, p. 268) thus explain the scope of this phrase: 
‘“usage includes Ordinations, Installations, and dismissions of Pastors; examinations of candidates 
for ordination or installation, in respect to their soundness in the faith and their qualifications for 
the work of the ministry ; occasions in which advice is regularly asked by the churches or individual 
members ; the hearing of appeals from the decisions of a consociated church; hearing and deter- 
mining cases of discipline or difficulty submitted to the consociation previous to trial ; trial of pastors 
accused of scandal or heresy on complaint or call of the association ; and in general, — deliberations 
and advice concerning matters of common interest to the churches.”’ 

3 Compare Proposals of 1705, pt. 2, sec.6 Congregational Order observes: ‘In respect to 
this article there is a diversity of usage. Most of the consociations have for many years voted by a 
joint ballot [7. e., elders and messengers together], and a majority of the whole forms the decision.”’ 


¥ 


504. THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


5. That when any case is orderly bro’t before any Council of 
the Chhs it shall there be heard and Determined which (vnless 
utterly removed from thence) shall be a finall Issue,* and all parties 
therein Concerned shall sit down & be Determined theirby; And 
the Councill so hearing and Giving the Result or finall Issue in the 
s? Case as afores* shall see their Determinations or judgment duly 
Executed and attended in such way or manner as shall in their 
judgmt be most suitable & agreeable to the word of God. 

6. That if any Past’ and Chh doth obstinately 1efuse a due 
attendance and Conformity to the Determination of the Council 
that has Cognizance of the Case & Determines it as above, after 
due patience used they shall be Reputed guilty of Scandalous Con- 
tempt & dealt w™ as the: Rule of Gods word In such Case doth 
provide, & the Sentence of Non-Comunion shall be Declared ag* 
such Past™ & Chh, and the Chhs are to approve of the s* Sentence 
by w"drawing from the Comunion of the Past? & Chh which so re- 
fuseth to be healed.’ 

7. That in Case any Difficultys shall arise in any of the Chhs 
in this Colony which cannot be Issued w"out Considerable Disquiet, 
that Chh in w they arise or that Minist” or member aggreived with 
them shall apply themselves to y® Council of the Consociated Chhs 
of the Circuit to which the s? Chh belongs, who if they see Cause 
shall thereon convene hear and determine such Cases of Difficulty 
unless the matter brét before y™ shall be judged so great in the 
nature of it, or so doubtfull in the Isue or of such Generall Concern 
that y® s* Council shall judge best that it be refered to a fuller 
Council consisting of the Chhs of the other Consociation within the 
same County (or of the next adjoyning Consociation of another 
County if their be not two Consociations in the County where the 
difficulty ariseth) who together with themselves shall hear judge, 
determine and finally Issue such Case according to the word of God.® 

8, That a particular Chh in w™ any difficulty doth arise may 
if they see cause call a Council of the Consociated Chhs of the 
Circuit to which the s? Chh belongs before y’ proceed to Sentence 
yin, but their [there] is not the same Liberty to an offending 
brother to call the s* Council before the Chh to w™ he belongs pro- 
ceed to excomunication in the s* Case unless w™ the Consent of 
the-Chh, 

9. That all the Chhs of the Respective Consociations shall 

1 Compare Proposals, pt. 2, sec. 7, ante, p. 489. 


2 Compare Proposals, pt. 2, sec. 8. Lb7d. 
3 Compare Profosads, pt. 2, sec. 7. Lbid. 


THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 505 


Choose if they see cause one or Two members of each Chh to 
represent them in the Councils of the s* Chhs as occasion may call 
for them, who shall stand in that capacity till new be Chosen for 
the same service unless any Chh shall Incline to Choose their mes- 
seng™ anew upon the Convening of such Councils.’ 

1o. That the Minist™ or Minist™ of the County Towns, and 
where their are no minist™ in such Town the Two next Minist™ to 
the st Town shall as soon as Conveniently may be appoint a time 
& place for the meeting of the Elders and Messeng*® of the Chhs in 
the st County In order to y’ forming themselves into one or more 
Consociations and notify the s* Time & place to the Eld™ and 
Chhs of that County, who shall attend at the same, the Eld™ In their 
own persons and y® Chhs by their Messeng™ if they see cause to 
send them, which Elders and Messeng™ so assembled In Councells 
as allso any other Councill hereby allowed off [of] shall have power 
to adjourn y™selves as need shall be for the space of one year after 
the Begining or first Session of the s* Councill and no longer, and 
that Minist’ who was chosen at the last Session of any Councill to 
be moderat* shall with the advice & consent of Two more Eld* (or 
In case of the Moderat™ death any Two Eld™ of the same Conso- 
ciation) call another Councill win the Circuit w" they shall judge 
their is need thereof, and all Councills may prescribe Rules as Occa- 
sion may require & whatsoever they shall judge needfull within their 
Circuit for the well performing and orderly Managing the severall 
acts to be attended by them, or Matters that come under their 
cognizance.” 

11. That if any person or persons orderly Complained off [of] 
to a Councill or that are witnesses to such Complaints have [having] 
regular Notification to appear shall refuse or neglect so to do in the 
Place and at the time specifyed in the warning given, except y’ or he 
give some Satisfying reason thereof to the s* Councill, they shall 
be judged guilty of Scandalous contempt.? 

12, That the teaching Eld™ of Each County shall be one: 
Association (or more if they see cause) which Association or Asso- 
ciations shall assemble twice a year at Least at such time and place 
as they shall appoint to Consult the Dutys of their office & the 
Comon Interest of the Chhs, who shall consider & resolve Questions 
& Cases of Importance which shall be offered by any amoung 


1 Compare Proposals, pt. 2, sec. 2; ante, p. 488. Congregational Order, p. 276, remarks:- 
**the general usage is to appoint delegates for a single council only.” 
2 Contrast this method of calling with that of the Proposals, pt. 2, sec. 5; ante, p. 488. 
3 This article has of course no cq nterpart in the less elaborately worked out Profosa/s, 
pore] 


500 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


y™selves or others,’ who shall have power of examining & Recom- 
ending the Candidates of the Ministry to the work thereof.’ 

13. That the s* Associated Eld™ shall take notice of any 
amoung y™selves that may be accused of Scandall or Heresy unto 
or Cognizable by them, examine the matters & if they find just 
occasion shall direct to the calling of the councill where such 
offend™ shall be duly proceeded against.* 

14. That the Associated Past™ shall also be consulted by 
Bereaved Chhs belonging to their Association & recomend to such 
Chhs such persons as may be fit to be called & settled in the Work of 
the Gospell Ministry amoung them,’ and if such bereaved Chhs shall 
not seasonably call & settle a minist’ amoung them the s* associated 
Past™ shall Lay the State of such bereaved Chh before the Gen" 
Assembly ® of this Colony that they may take such order concern- 
ing them as shall be found necessary for y™ peace & edification. 

15. That it be recomended as expedient that all the Associa- 
tions of this Colony do meet in the Gen" Association by their 
respective Delegates one or more out of each Association once a 
year,® the first meeting to be at. Hartford at the time of the Gen" 
Election next ensuing the Date hereof’ and so annually in all the 
Countys successively at such Time and Place as y” the s* Delegates 
shall in their Annuall Meetings appoint. 

The above written Draught voted and agree by y* Councill 
above (> Stéphen -Mix’)) 
| Jn? Woodward j 


This report, so important for the ecclesiastical history of 


as Attest Scribes” 


Connecticut, was immediately laid before the General Court at its 


1 Compare Progosals, pt. 1, sec. rand 2; aztfe, p. 487. 

2 Compare Profosads, pt. 1, sec. 4. The still existing system of ministerial licensure, recom- 
mended in the Heads of A greenent (ante, p. 458-9) was thus established in Mass. and Conn. 

8 Taken to a large extent verbally from the Profosals, pt. 1, sec. 3, axte, p. 487. The Conn. 
General Association in 1822 put an explanatory interpretation on this article, of which this is the 
chief clause: ‘*the 13th article is decisive, that it is the duty of an Association to receive an accusa- 
tion against a pastor belonging to it, and to make provision for his trial before the Consociation ; 
and your committee are convinced, that the Platform does not warrant a Consociation to receive an 
accusation against a pastor, unless it come through the hands of the Association, of which he isa 
member.’? Upham, Ratio Discipline, p. 316. Congregational Order, p. 281, remarks: ‘*‘ Happily 
for the reputation and usefulness of the ministry in Connecticut, precedents for settling this inquiry 
are rare.”’ 

4 Taken with some modification of expression from the Proposals, pt. 1, sec. 53 ante, 487. 

5 7, e., the Conn. legislature. The contemporary records are full of instances of legislative 
interference in parish affairs. Congregational Order, p.232, observes: ‘until the last thirty years, 
[before 1843] the churches . . . were accustomed to consult the associated pastors and to em- 
ploy candidates recommended by them.”’ 

6 To a large extent verbally from the Proposals, pt. 1, sec. 7, ante, p. 488. 

7 May 12,1709. This was the first General Association to come into being and the body has 
ever since been maintained. 


RECEPTION OF THE PLATFORM 507 


October session at New Haven and approved by the following vote, 
enacting it into the law of the colony:’ 


‘The Reverend Ministers delegates from the elders and messengers of the 
churches in this government, met at Saybrook, September gth, 1708, having pre- 
sented to this Assembly a Confession of Faith, Heads of Agreement, and Regulations 
in the Administration of Church Discipline, as unanimously agreed and consented to 
by the elders and messengers of all the churches in this government : This Assembly do 
declare their great approbation of such a happy agreement, and do ordain that all 
the churches within this government that are or shall be thus united in doctrine, wor- 
ship, and discipline, be, and for the future shall be owned and acknowledged estab- 
lished by law Provided always, that nothing herein shall be intended and construed 
to hinder or prevent any society or church that is or shall be allowed by the laws of 
this government, who soberly differ or dissent from the united churches hereby estab- 
lished, from exercising worship and discipline in their own way, according to their 
consciences.” ” 


The Court followed this act of approval at its next session, 
May, 1709, by an order® that the first meeting of the General Asso- 
ciation, then in session at Hartford should “revise and prepare for 
the press’”’ the various symbols adopted at Saybrook, and that they 
should forthwith be printed. Asaresult, the little volume was issued 
in 1710 from the press which Gov. Saltonstall had caused to be estab- 
lished at New London, and has the distinction of being the first book 
published in Connecticut. The edition of 2,000, paid for by the 
Colony, was distributed in 1714, by the order of the Government. 
Once more, in 1760, it was put forth at colonial charges in an edition 
of the same size and placed in each town in the colony.’ 

The system thus inaugurated was received with varying 
approval by the churches. Even in the Synod itself, though the 
vote was unanimous, the views of the members as to the extent 
of the new constitution were divided.® But the chief opportunity 
for expression of opinion was in the meetings of the pastors and 
churches of the respective counties called in the spring of 1709 to 


put the new system into practice by the establishment of associa- 


1 Conn. Records, V: 87. 

2 This clause was the further ratification of a toleration act, based on the English toleration 
act of 1689, which the Conn. legislature had passed in May, 1708, at the same session which issued 
the call for the Saybrook Synod. This act granted freedom of worship to dissenters on the same 
terms as in England,— requiring the payment of their taxes for the support of the established order. 
Conn. Records, V: 50. Parlay NV VOF, Oo. 

4 The votes and orders are in Conn, Records, V: 192, 423, 440. 

5 See Conn. Rec., XI: 333, 565. I give the date of the second edition, the votes are of 1759 
and 61. The copies were ordered ‘‘ distributed to the several towns in this Colony according to 
their publick lists.”’ 6 Compare axze, p. sor; Trumbull, Covz., I: 487. 


508 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


tions and consociations. The churches of Hartford County were 
the first to act. On February 1 and 2, 1709, the representatives of 
eleven of the fourteen or fifteen churches then in the county,—ten 
ministers and twelve laymen,— met at Hartford and organized two 
Consociations; and the same ministers formed themselves, on Feb- 
ruary 2d, into two Associations, coextensive with the Consociations. 
According to the vote of this county council;’ 


‘* The Chhs of Hartford [3],? Windsor [2] Farmington & Symsbury shall be of 
one Consociation and the Chhs of Weathersfield, Middletown Waterbury * Glassen- 
bury Haddam, Windham and Colchester shall be of the other Consociation in the 
County of Hartford.” 


The scribe of this council, Stephen Mix, had been scribe also 
of the Saybrook Synod, and two of the three other Saybrook dele- 
gates were present; and the new ecclesiastical system seems to 
have met with general approval, at least no amendment or modifi- 
cation is suggested in the minutes. 

No other county than Hartford formed more than one Conso- 
ciation at this time. In New London County, later the scene of 
much opposition by individual churches to the Saybrook system, a 
Consociation was formed on March 2, 1709, by a council of five 
ministers and eight laymen, from seven churches.* Here appar- 
ently, as in Hartford County, the result of the Synod was accepted 
without modification. But both in Hartford and New London 
Counties there were individual churches really, if not openly, out 
of sympathy with the new system. At East Windsor the church 
never approved of it, though for a time silent under it, and the 
result was a quarrel which embittered the later pastorate of 
Timothy Edwards.* At Norwich, where John Woodward, one of 
the scribes of the Synod, was pastor, the introduction of the sys- 
tem was the cause of a bitter dispute which eventually cost Wood- 
ward his pulpit and led his church wholly to renounce the Saybrook 
Platform.°® 


1 From the MS. records of the Hartford North Association. 

2 East Hartford had not been set off as a separate town. 

3 Simsbury, Middletown, and Waterbury were the churches unrepresented in this council. 
Hartford County had then a much larger territorial extent than at present. 

4 Quoted from the records of New London Association in Cong. Order, pp. 41, 42 

5 See Stiles, A uctent Windsor, pp. 240-246. 

6 See Caulkins, History of Norwich, pp. 284-288. 


THE FAIRFIELD INTERPRETATION 509 


If Hartford and New London Counties, as a whole, accepted 
the Saybrook system as it came from the Synod, New Haven 
found it too strict and Fairfield esteemed it too liberal. The 
latter acted in a council at Stratfield, now Bridgeport, on March 
16 and 17, 1709. 


** Sigillum! At a Consociation or meeting of the Elders 
Consociationis and Messengers of the County of Fairfield 
Fairfieldensis at Stratfield March 16, 1708. 

The Revd. Mr. John Davenport? chosen Moderator 
Present from y® The Revd. Mr. Charles Chauncey Scribe.? 
Chh of Fairfield After Solemn Seeking of God for divine 
The Rev? Mr. Joseph Webb guidance, direction and blessings the Coun- 

Messenge’® cil convened. 

Deacon John Thomson The Acts of y® Council at Saybrook, Sep- 
Mr. Samuel Cobbet. tember 9, 1708 were read the first time as 


From y® Chh of Stratford. 
Messenge'® 
Joseph Curtiss Esqr. 

Mr. Samuel Sherman. 
From y® Chh of Stratfield. 
The Revd. Mr. Charles Chauncey 
Messenger. 

Lieut. James Bennet. 
From y® Chh of Stamford. 
The Revd. Mr. Jno. Davenport. 
Messengers. 

Deacon Sam!! Hoit? 

Mr. Jos. Bishop 
From y® Chh of Danbury. 
The Revd. Mr. Seth Shove. 
Messengers. 

Lieut. James Beebee 
Mr. James Benedict. 
From y® Chh of Norwalk. 
The Rev? Mr. Stephen Buckingham. 
Messenger 


also the general Assembly’s approbation and 
sanction thereof, October 1708. 

Voted in Council to adjourn till 8 of y® 
clock in y® morning. 

The Consociation being met according to 
adjournment, after prayer made it was agreed 

Imps. That all the Chhs. in y® County 
of Fairfield be one Consociation. 

2. That y® Pastors met in our Consocia- 
tion have power with y® Consent of the Mes- 
sengers of our Chhs. chosen and attending, 
Authoritatively Judicially and Decisively to 
determine ecclesiastically affairs brot to their 
Cognizance according to the Word of God 
and that our Pastors with the concurrence 
and consent of the Messengers of our Chhes 
to be chosen and that shall attend upon all 
future occasions, have like Authoritative, 
Judicial and Decisive power of Determina- 
tion of affairs ecclesiasticall, and that in fur- 
ther and fuller meetings of two Consociations 

. Deacon Zerubbabel Hoit. together compliant with y® conclusions of y° 
From y® Chh of Woodbury. sd Councill at Saybrook, there is the like 
The Revd. Mr. Anthony Stoddard. Authoritative, Judiciall and Decisive power 


=e 5 Ss 5 Cees, Sa 6 Pe eA ee 


Messengers. of Determination of Ecclesiastical affairs 
Deacon John Sherman according to y® word of God. 
Deacon Matthew Mitchell J 3. That by Elder or Elders of a particu- 


lar Chh in said Saybrook conclusions mentioned in Paragraph y? first is understood 
only in y® teaching Elder or teaching Elders.? 





1 The original of this document is preserved in the records of the Stratfield church (First 
Church in Bridgeport), and is printed in Orcutt, Wzst. of the Old Town of Stratford and the 
City of Bridgeport, [New Haven], 1886, I: 312, 313; and Zhe 150th Anniversary of the Fair- 
jield County Consociations, Bridgeport, 1886, pp. 32-34. 

2 The entire Fairfield County delegation at Saybrook, 3 J, é., ministers only. 


S510 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


4. That in y® 6t* Paragraph of sd conclusions we do not hold ourselves obliged 
in our practice to use y® phrase of y® sentence of Non Communion but in y® stead 
thereof to use y® phrase of y® sentence of Excommunication which may in our judg- 
ment be formally applied in y® Cases expressed in said Paragraph. 

The Councill adjourned till half an hour past two oclock in y® afternoon. 

5. That to y® orderly begining of a case before a Councill of our Chhes. y® 
aggrieved member shall make application unto y® moderator of the Councill or Con- 
sociation for y® time being or in case of y* moderator’s death to y® free! Sen" Pastor 
of y® Consociation who upon his desire shall receive attested copies of y® Chhs pro- 
ceedings with y® aggrieved member from their minister and y® sd. Moderator with 
the two free senr. Pastors of y* Circuit or in y* Case premised of y® death of y® Mod- 
erator y® sd 2 senr. pastors of y® circuit being satisfied there is sufficient cause shall 
warn y® convening of the Consociation. 

6. That a Copy of a Warning to appear before y® Councill the time and place 
being notified being read in the hearing or left in y® house of the ordinary abode of 
a scandalous member or witness concerning the case depending before two members 
of the designation of the Scribe? for y* time being and signed by the sd Scribe be 
adjudged a regular notification. 

7. That acopy of a Warning to appear before y® Pastor or Chh. y® place and time 
notified being read in y® hearing or left in the ordinary abode of an offending member 
or witness needfull in the case before two members appointed by the pastor and 
signed by him shall be a fair notification y® neglect whereof unless upon sufficient 
reason shall be reputed a scandalous contempt in our respective Chhes. 

8. That all persons that are known to be Baptized shall in y* places where 
they dwell be subject to y*® Censures of admonition and excommunication in case of 
scandall committed and obstinately persisted in. 

g. That the Moderator and Scribe now chosen be accounted to stand in y® 
same respective capacities for y® time being untill a new regular choice be made, and 
so for the future. 

10. That y® Judgment of y® Consociation or Councill be executed by any Pastor 
appointed thereto by y® Councill when y® Pastor that hath already dealt in y® case 
hath not a freedome of conscience to execute y® same. 

The above Acts and Conclusions of the present Consociation unanimously Voted 
March 17, 1708. 

Signed Charles Chauncey, Scribe. 
The above and foregoing is a true Copy of the Originall Compared. 
pr. Samuel Cooke. 


This was an interpretation not far removed from Presbyteri- 
anism. The strong judicial flavor of the Saybrook Articles was 
increased till the Fairfield interpretation made the Consociation 
fully a church court.* The sentence of non-communion was not 





1 7, e,, not concerned in the dispute. 

2 As I take it, a comma should be inserted after ‘‘ depending’’; and the meaning is that this 
reading or leaving the notification is to be in the presence of two witnesses named by the scribe 
issuing the summons. So in the next section. 

3 Chauncey’s successor in the Stratfield pastorate, 1715-1747. 

4 Article 2 of Fairfield Interpretation. It is interesting to note that in 1846 the Fairfield West 
Consociation, a direct representative of the body with which we have to do, voted, ‘‘ As concerns 
the relations of Consociation to consociated churches, and its power over them, it disclaims, and 


THE NEW HAVEN INTERPRETATION 511 


severe enough to be the penalty of a delinquent church,—the 
churches of Fairfield would change that to the un-Congregational 
extreme of excommunication, as if they had full right to cast an 
erring church out of the fold of Christ." At the same time the 
method of calling the Consociation, notifying the accused and 
witnesses, and executing judgments rendered, was far more 
minutely laid down than in the Saybrook Platform and given a 
more judicial tone.? 

But while Fairfield County thus emphasized, by the unanimous 
vote of the representatives of its churches, the stricter interpreta- 
tion of the meaning of the work at Saybrook, the churches of New 
Haven County moved in the other direction. The churches of 
that county were the last to act, delaying their ratification till 
April 13,1709. The story of their meeting was told in 1759 by 
Rey. Jonathan Todd, in a controversial pamphlet,? and is as 
follows: 


‘“The Rev'd Mr. Pierpont the Minister of Vew-/aven, accordingly,* appointed 
a Meeting of the Elders and Messengers of the County of New-Haven at Branford, 
the 13th of Apri/, 1709, for that Purpose;° and notified the Time and Place, to the 
Elders and Churches of the County. Most of the Elders and Churches by their 
Messengers, attended, tho’ with particular Instructions (as I was informed by One, 
who was very active in bringing about such a Consociation of the Churches) to take 
Care to secure their congregational Privileges. When they came together, many of 
the Messengers of the Churches, had some Doubts, whether their congregational 
Liberties were sufficiently guarded, in some of the Articles. The Rev'd Mr. Andrew 
and Mr. Pzerfont interpreted these Articles to their Satisfaction: They insisted that 
the Sense of those Articles, or Clauses of Articles, that they were in greatest Doubt 
about, should be written and fixed, to prevent a different interpretation hereafter. 
This was agreed to, (as I was informed, by One who was acquainted with the Doings 
of the Council at Say-Brook, and of this at Branford) and then the Council came 
into the following Resolve and Covenant, viz. 


always has disclaimed, all legislative power. . . . Incasesof difficulty and discipline submitted to 
Consociations by the churches, it simply gives advise.”’ zsoth Anniversary of the Consociations 
[of] Fairfield, p. 21. This certainly implies a good deal of modification of view, and a good deal 
of forgetting of history also, in the lapse of 137 years. 

1 (bid., Art. 4. 2 Jbid., Arts. 5, 6, 7, To. 

3A Haithful Narrative, of Proceedings of the First Society and Church in Walling- 
Jord tn their calling and settling the Rev. J. Dana. New Haven, 1759, pp. 34-37. It is per- 
haps needless to observe that the writer favored a loose construction of the Articles. He was 
pastor at East Guilford, now Madison, 1733-91. He could easily have enjoyed the personal ac- 
quaintance of several of the New Haven County ministers active in 1709. Part of this document 
is printed in Cong. Order, pp. 284-286. 

4 7, e., in accordance with Article X. of the Saybrook Platform, of which Todd has just been 
speaking. ‘ 

5 J, e., organizing a consociation, 


512 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


‘Ata Council of the Elders and Messengers of the Churches of WVew-Haven, 
Milford, Branford, Derby and Last-Guilford,' in the County of Mew-//aven, con- 
vened at Branford, April 13, 1709, After Invocation on the Lorpb, for his gracious 
Presence and Conduct, the Rev'd Samuel Andrew and James Pierpont, were 
chosen Moderators. 

The Rev'd S. Andrew* ~ Messengers present. 
[hide por” J. Punderson 
S: Russel* ake A. Brady, J 
fe pless.? Has Mish Buckingham \ 
J. Hart® S. Eels ) 
J. Kose | From Branford Church, 
P. Tyler) . 
J. Nichols, from Derby Church, 
NV. Bradly, from Last-Guilford Church. 


f From Wew-Haven Church, 


From J@7l/ford Church, 


‘** Ordered, and voted, that a Record be made of all Votes and Determinations 
that shall be made by this Council. 

‘‘Whereas Communion of Saints, is an appointed and sanctified Means of 
Christian Edification; and Communion of Churches, a principal Means for the 
Preservation of Peace, Order, Establishment, and Consolation of the Churches ; consid- 
ering also, (notwithstanding the wise and pious Care of our Revy’d Fathers, the 
Founders of these Churches, to assert the Duty of such Communion, by giving the 
Right Hand of Fellowship to said Churches) that thro’ the Corruption of the Times, 
the too great Slackness, and Inadvertency of our own Hearts ; our several Churches 
have of late been over remiss, in making due Use of said Means: Therefore humbling 
ourselves before GOD for, and begging his Forgiveness thro JESUS CHRIST, 
for past Omissions; We now, whose Names are here specified, for ourselves, and 
in Behalf of the several Churches from whence we are come, according to the 
Method agreed on by the Council of all the Churches" in this Colony, met at Say- 
Brook, Sept. 9. 1708, do (until we shall otherwise agree) form ourselves into one 
Consociation ; and thro the strength of CHRIST (without whom we can do nothing) 
promise for the Future, we will better mutually watch over each other, and be ready 
at all Times, according to the Rule of Gop’s Word, Zo be helpful to each other, in 
the Service and Work of the Kingdom of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, as we 
may have Opportunity for the same, and be called thereunto, according to the said 
Method and Rule, agreed on at said Council at Say-Brook. 

‘*Some Members desiring the Council’s Sense of several Articles in the written ® 
Method of managing Discipline, as it was agreed on by the Council at Say-Brook. 
Sept. 9. 1708. 





1 The New Haven County churches not represented were Guilford and Wallingford. There 
is reason to believe that the Wallingford pastor, at least, was detained by bodily infirmity. 

2 Samuel Andrew of Milford, member of Saybrook Synod. 

3 James Pierpont of New Haven, also at Saybrook, 

4 Samuel Russell of Branford, the third member of the delegation at Saybrook, 

® Joseph Moss of Derby. 

6 John Hart of East Guilford, now Madison. 

7 Dr. Bacon deemed the representation of the General Court, that the Saybrook Synod spoke 
the voice of the Connecticut churches as a whole, very cool and audacious.— Cont. Eccles. Hist. 
Conn., p. 38, But this New Haven County council evidently looked upon the Saybrook body as 
universally representative. 

8 This was literally true,—the Saybrook platform was not Jrixfted till 1710. 


THE NEW HAVEN INTERPRETATION 513 


‘Voted as follows, 

‘1. As to the first Art.! we conclude, Z/ the Majority of the Brethren don’t 
consent, the Elders can’t proceed to act: If the Elders can’t consent, the Fraternity 
can't proceed; in which Case, it is proper to seek Council. 

‘2. Thesecond 477. we understand to be ax Explanation, or revival of the Duty 
engaged by our Churches, when they give the right Hand of Fellowship. 

*3. By all Cases of Scandal in Art. third, we suppose such Cases as need a 
Council for their Determination. 

“4. A major Part of the Elders we suppose necessary: As 72 a particular 
Church, the Brethren can’t act without the Elders, so in a Council, the Messengers 
may not make an act of Council, without the Elders, or the major Part of them. 

‘5. Shall see their Determination, &c. t. e. shall by themselves, or some of their 
Number, deputed thereunto, observe whether the Council of GOD, sought in this 
Way, may be complied with or refused. 

‘6. Contempt of Council, sought of Gon, or offer’d in a Way of Gop, must be 
scandalous, or a just Offence, and to be dealt in: And that Clause, viz, The Churches 
are to approve of said Sentence, &c. We understand as the Platform expresseth 
it, viz. Zhe Churches being informed of the Council's Judgment, and the Churches 
approving said Sentence, then the Non-Communion Zo be declared.? Without Appro- 
bation of Churches, There can’t be a Non-Communion of said Churches. 

‘7. The 7th Article Zrovides only for joining two Councils, in weighty, difficult 
and dangerous Cases. 

‘8. Churches may call a Council before they proceed to censure, but without their 
Allowance, no PARTICULAR Person shall have a Council before Excommunication., 

‘g. That as no Members of a Council can remain such, for longer than one 
Year ; so the Council [Churches?] may choose new Messengers for every. Council, if 
they see Cause. 

‘to. The roth Article directs to the calling the first Council, and adjourning — 
the same, not beyond a Year, and how a further Council may afterwards de called. 

‘ri. The 11th Artic. shews how Persons concern’d may be obliged to attend with 
their Cases and Evidence, on a Council. 

‘12. The 12th Artic. zs the Revival of our former Ministers’ Meetings, for the 
Ends and good Services formerly aim’d at; wherein our People did rejoice for a 
Season, and hope yet will, 

*13. The 13th Art. skews, how a Minister offending, may be proceeded against, 
tel by the Council of that Consociation, he be reclaim’d, or removed from his Office. 

A true Copy of the Acts of Council, 
Test. Joseph Moss, Scribe. 

A true Copy, from the Record of the Association of Mew-Haven County, 

examined by 7homas Ruggles,’ 
Keeper of the Association’s Book of Records.” 


With these modifications, the Saybrook system went into gen- 
eral operation throughout the Colony. It had the hearty support 


1 To see the full minimizing force of these resolutions they should be compared, article by 
article, with the Saybrook Platform, azze, pp. 503-506. 

2 Compare Cambridge Platform, ch. XV, sec. 2, par. 3; @zte, pp. 230-231. Contrast also with 
Fairfield interpretation, sec. 4, azze, p. 510. 

3 This was doubtless Thomas Ruggles, Jr., pastor at Guilford when Todd published this 
document. 


514 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


of the colonial government and of the majority of the ministry. 
Its chief trial came when the “ Great Awakening” of 1740-41 pro- 
duced radical diversities of view as to methods of Christian evan- 
gelization in many of the churches, In the separations’ and 
divisions which followed, especially in Eastern Connecticut, the 
system operated in favor of the conservatives. In general, it pro- 
duced a feeling of sympathy with the Presbyterianism of the Middle 
Colonies, rather than with the more independent Congregationalism 
of Massachusetts, which led to many codperant efforts in endeavors 
to resist Episcopacy and evangelize the newer settlements to the 
westward during the latter part of the eighteenth century and the 
beginning of our own.? This feeling of kinship to Presbyterianism 
rather than to pure Congregationalism had frequent and curious 
illustration. As late as Feb. 5, 1799, the Hartford North Associa- 


tion united in the following astounding declaration: ° 


‘“ This Association gives information to all whom it may concern, that the Con- 
stitution of the Churches in the State of Connecticut, founded on the common usage, 
and the confession of faith, heads of agreement, and articles of church discipline, 
adopted at the earliest period of the Settlement of this State,* is not Congregational, 
but contains the essentials of the church of Scotland, or Presbyterian Church in 
America, particularly as it gives a decisive power to Ecclesiastical Councils; anda 
Consociation consisting of Ministers and Messengers or a lay representation from the 
churches is possessed of substantially the same authority as a Presbytery. The 
judgements, decisions and censures in our Churches and in the Presbyterian are 
mutually deemed valid. The Churches, therefore, of Connecticut at large and in our 
districts in particular, are not now and never were from the earliest period of our set- 
tlement, Congregational Churches, according to the ideas and forms of Church order 
contained in the book of discipline called the Cambridge Platform; there are, how- 
ever, Scattered over the State, perhaps ten or twelve Churches which are properly 
called Congregational,® agreeable to the rules of Church discipline in the book above 
mentioned. Sometimes indeed the associated churches of Connecticut are loosely 
and vaguely, tho improperly, termed Congregational.” 


But even before the adoption of this declaration the Saybrook 


1 The Separatists are treated in the Vew Englander, XI: 195; in Cont. Eccles. Hist. Conn., 
pp. 253-9; and, best of all, by Miss Larned, W7st. Windham County, Conn., Worcester, 1874, I: 
393-485- 

2 Some instances will be given in the next chapter. 

3 Records ;—also quoted in G, L. Walker, 7st. First Ch., Hartford, pp. 358, 359. It was 
agreed upon by fifteen ministers of the County. 

4 This affirmation, and several which follow, are the more remarkable perversions of history in 
view of the publication at Hartford, two years before this declaration, of the first volume of Trum- 
bull’s: Connecticut. © 

5 /, e., churches which rejected the Saybrook system. 


LATER. HISTORY 515 


system had ceased to have the special sanction of the law. The 
revision of the statutes which followed the Revolution, in 1784, 
silently repealed the legal authority of the Saybrook establishment 
by omitting all reference to it; though it still required all inhabit- 
ants of a parish, who were not declared supporters of some other 
form of worship, to contribute to the maintenance of the Congre- 
gational ministry. In the political upheaval of 1818, when the 
present constitution of Connecticut was adopted, this remaining 
shred of the old ecclesiastical establishment was swept away, and 
all special privileges denied to the Congregational body. Since 
that time all religious associations in Connecticut have been purely 
voluntary. 

But the consociational system in Connecticut long survived its 
legal disestablishment. Always subject to a variety of construc- 
tions of greater or less strictness, it yet had such a hold upon the 
churches that as late as 1841 all but 15 of the 246 churches then 
existing in Connecticut were consociated.' Yet consociationism 
had for years been relaxing the closeness of its hold, and during 
the two decades from 1850 to 1870 the process of disintegration 
went rapidly on. The purging out of the leaven of Presbyterianism 
through the reviving sense of the integrity and sufficiency of Con- 
gregationalism under the teachings of eminent men, of whom Dr. 
Bacon of New Haven may serve as an example, had much to do 
with this result. Much, too, was due to the influence of widespread 
doctrinal discussions, and much also to the multiplication of new 
churches in the rapidly growing towns. The freer union of “ Confer- 
ences’? has taken the place of the old Consociations in almost every 
portion of Connecticut. Yet Consociations still survive. There 
are still bodies known as the Consociations of Fairfield East, and 
West, Litchfield South, and New Haven East, and they still report 
a membership of 71 out of 306 churches of the Congregational 
order in the state;* but in practical administration these unions now 


1 Congregational Order, p. 52. 

2 In Connecticut a *‘ Conference’’ 1s in no sense a council and has no judicial powers whatever. 
It is a body for friendly discussion, for mutual assistance in Christian work, and it chooses repre- 
sentatives to state and national conferencesand councils. It does not pass upon ministerial fitness 
or settle church quarrels. 

3 Minutes of Conn. General Conference, 1892. 


516 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


differ little from Conferences. Asa system of strong ecclesiastical 
government the structure erected by the Saybrook Synod is now 
a thing of the past. Great diversity of view as to the usefulness 
of some of its provisions still obtains. But there can be no ques- 
tion that it has essentially modified the Congregationalism of 
America from what it would have been without the example of 
Connecticut. Connecticut set the pattern for those annual meet- 
ings of the churches of each state which have become a feature of 
our polity; nor is it too much to affirm that the example of mutual 
helpfulness given by the Consociations of Connecticut, though not 
followed elsewhere to the extent of establishing standing councils, 
has been chiefly instrumental in forming the Conferences in which 
the churches of counties and other local divisions are almost 
everywhere affiliated. The familiar local ministerial Association 
was not indeed original to Connecticut. It took deep root in Mas- 
sachusetts soil. But in the popularization of that institution, and 
in making it, as it still is in large sections of our land, the agent in 
ministerial licensure, the influence of Connecticut has been decisive. 
The results of the Saybrook system are not the property of one 
colony alone but of all our American Congregational heritage.’ 


1 Compare the judicious remarks of Dr. Bacon, Cont. Eccles. Hist. Conn., pp. 68-70. 


PREFACE TO THE-GONFESSION 517 


THE SAYBROOK RESULT 

A | CONFESSION | or | FAITH | Owned and Consented to 
by the | Elders and Messengers | Of the cHURCHEs | In the Colony 
of CONNECTICUT in | NEW-ENGLAND, | Assembled by Delega- 
tion at Say-Brook | September oth. 1708. | WED LAD Stan) O72 
Faith. | Col. 2.5. Joying and beholding your | Order and the stead- 
fastness of your | Fatth tn Christ. | | New-London in N. E. | 
Printed by Thomas Short, | 1710. 














[i blank] 
[1] 
A Preface. 


Mong the Memorable Providences relating to our English Nation in the last 
Century, must be acknowledged the setling of Zuglish Colonies in the Amer- 
zcan parts of the World; Among all which this hath been Peculiar unto and 

to the distinguishing Glory of that Tract called Vew-ugland, that the Colonies 
there were Originally formed, not for the advantage of Zrade and a Worldly Interest : 
But upon the most noble Foundation, even of Religion, and the Liberty of their 
Consciences, with respect unto the Ordinances of the Gospel Administred in the 
Purity and Power of them; an happiness then not to be enjoyed in their Native Soil. 

We joyfully Congratulate the Religious Liberty of our Brethren in the late 
Auspicious Reign of K. William, and Q. Mary, of Blessed Memory, & in the present 
Glorious Reign, and from the bottom of our Hearts bless the Lord whose Prerogative 
it is to reserve the Times and Seasons in his own hand, who also hath Inspired the 
Pious Mind of Her most Sacred Majesty,! whose Reign we constantly [2] and un- 
feignedly Pray, may be long and Glorious, with Royal Resolutions, Inviolably to 
maintain the Toleration. 


Deus enin - - hec Otia fecit. 


Undoubtedly if the same had been the Liberty of those Times, our Fathers 
would have been far from Exchanging a most pleasant Land (dulce solum patric) for 
a vast and howling Wilderness; Since for the enjoyment of so desirable Liberty a 
considerable number of Learned, Worthy and Pious Persons were by a Divine Im- 
pulse and Extraordinary concurrence of Dispositions engaged to adventure their Lives 
Families and Estates upon the vast Ocean,? following the Lord into a Wilderness, a 
Land then not sown: Wherein Innumerable difficulties staring them in the Face were 
outbid by Heroick Resolution, Magnanimity & confidence in the Lord alone. *Our 
Fathers trusted in the Lord and were delivered, they trusted in him and were not 
confounded. It was their care to be with the Lord, and their indulgence,* That ¢he 
Lord was with them, to a Wonder preserving supporting protecting and animating 
them; dispatching and destroying the Pagaz Natives by extraordinary Sickness and 
Mortality, that there might °e room for his People to serve the Lord our God in, 


1 Queen Anne. 2 Jer. 2. 2. 3 Psal. 22. 4, 5. 
42 Chron. 15. 2. 5 Psal. 80. 8, 9. 


518 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


It was the Glory of our Fa-[3]thers, that they heartily professed the only Rule of 
their Religion from the very first to be the Holy Scripture, according whereunto, so 
far as they were perswaded upon diligent Inquiry, Solicitous search, and faithful 
Prayer conformed was their Faith, their Worship together with the whole Adminis- 
tration of the House of Christ, and their manners, allowance being given to humane 
Failures and Imperfections. 

That which they were most Solicitous about, and wherein their Liberty had been 
restrained, respected the Worship of God and the Government of the Church of 
Christ according to his own appointment, their Faith and Profession of Religion be- 
ing the same, which was generally received in all the Reformed Churches of Europe, 
and in Substance the Assemblies Confession, as shall be shown anon. 

It cannot be denied, that the Usage of the Christian Church whose Faith wholly 
rested upon the word of God respecting Confessions of Faith is very Ancient and that 
which is universally acknowledged to be most so, and of Universal acceptance and 
consent is commonly called the Apostles Creed, a Symbol sign or Badge of the Chris- 
tian Religion, called the Apostles, not because they composed it, for then it must 
have been received into the Canon of the Holy Bible, but because the mat-[4]ter of it 
agreeth with the Doctrine & is taken out of the Writings of the Apostles. Conse- 
quent hereunto, as the necessity of the Church for the Correcting Condemning & 
Suppressing of //eresy & Error required, have been emitted Ancient and Famous 
Confessions of Faith composed and agreed upon by Oecumenical Councils, e.g. Of 
Nice against Arrius, of Constantinople against AMacedonius, of Lphesu against WVes- 
torius, of Chalcedon against Lutyches. And when the Light of Reformation broke 
forth to the dispersing of Popish darkness, the Reformed Nations agreed upon Con- 
fessions of Faith, famous in the World and of especial service to theirs and standing 
Ages. And among those of latter times Published in our Nation most worthy of 
Repute and Acceptance we take to be the Confession of Faith, Composed by the Rev- 
erend Assembly of Divines Convened at Westminster, with that of the Savoy, in the 
substance and in expressions for the most part the same: the former! professedly 
assented & attested to, by the Fathers of our Country by Unanimous Vote of the 
Synod of Elders and Messengers of the Churches met at Cambridge the last of the 
6¢h. Month 1648. The latter owned and consented to by the Elders and Messengers 
of the Churches Assembled at Boston. May 12th. 1680. The same we doubt not to 
profess to have been the constant Faith of the [5] Churches in this Colony from the 
first Foundation of them. And that it may appear to the Christian World, that our 
Churches do not maintain differing Opinions in the Doctrine of Religion, nor are 
desirous for any reason to conceal the Faith we are perswaded of: The Elders and 
Messengers of the Churches in this Colony of Connecticut in New England, by ver- 
tue of the Appointment and Encouragement of the Honourable the General Assembly, 
Convened by Delegation at Say Brook, Sept gth. 1708. Unanimously agreed, that 
the Confession of Faith owned and Consented unto by the Elders and Messengers of 
the Churches Assembled at Boston in New-England May 12th. 1680. Being the 
second Session of that Synod, be Recommended to the Honourable the General 
Assembly of this Colony at their next Session, for their Publick Testimony thereto, 
as the Faith of the Churches of this Colony, which Confessien together with the 
Ileads of Union and Articles for the Administration of Church Government herewith 
emitted were Presented unto and approved and established by the said General As- 
sembly at Vezw-//aven on the 14¢h. of October 1708. 


4 See the Preface to the Platform of Church Discipline, azze, p. 195. 


PREFACE lO. THE GONFESSION 519 


This Confession of Faith we offer as our firm Perswasion well and fully grounded 
upon the Holy Scripture, and Commend the same unto all and particularly to the 
people of our Colony to be examined accepted and constantly maintained. We do 
not assume to our-[6|selves, that any thing be taken upon trust from us, but com- 
mend to our people these following Counsels. 

I. That You be immoveably and unchangeably agreed in the only sufficient, and 
invariable Rule of Religion, which is the Holy Scripture the fixed Canon,’ uncapa- 
ble of addition or diminution, You ought to account nothing ancient, that will not 
stand by this Rule,? nor any thing new that will. Do not hold your selves bound to 
Unscriptural Rites in Religion, wherein Custom it self doth many times misguid. 
Believe it to be the honour of Religion to resign and captivate our Wisdom and Faith 
to Divine Revelation.* 

Il. Zhat You be determined by this Rule in the whole of Religion. That 
Your Faith be right and Divine, the Word of God must be the foundation of tt, 
and the Authority of the Word the reason of it.4 You may believe the most Im- 
portant Articles of Faith, with no more than an Humane Faith; And this is evermore 
the cause, when the Principle Faith is resolved into, is any other than the holy Scrip- 
ture. For an Orthodox Christian to resolve his Faith, into Education Instruction 
and the perswasion of others is not an higher reason, than a Papist, MZahometan, or 
Pagan can produce for his Religion. 

[7] Pay also unto God the Worship, that will bear the Tryal of and receive 
Establishment by this Rule. Have always in Readiness a Divine Warrant for all the 
Worship you Perform to God. Believe that Worship is accepted and that only, 
which is directed unto, and Commanded, and hath the promise of a Blessing from 
the Word of God. Believe that Worship not Divinely Commanded 7s 7x vazz,° nor 
will answer the Necessities and Expectations of a Christian, and is a Worshipping, 
you know not what.® Believe in all Divine Worship, it is not enough that this or 
that Act of Worship is not forbidden in the Word of God; If it be not Commanded, 
and you perform it, You may fear, You’ will be found Guilty and exposed to Divine 
Displeasure.?’ Madab and Abihu paid dear for Offering in Divine Worship that 
which the Lord Commanded them not. It is an honour done unto Christ, when you 
account that only Decent Orderly and Convenient in his House, which depends upon 
the Institution and appointment of himself, who is the only Head and Law-giver of 
his Church. 

III. That you be well grounded in the firm Truths of Religion. We have 
willingly taken pains to add the Holy Scriptures, whereon every point of Faith con- 
tained in this Confessi-[8]on doth depend, and is born up by, and commend the same 
to your diligent perusal, that You be established in the truth and your Faith rest 
upon its proper Basis, the Word of God.* Follow the Example of the Noble 
Bereans, Search the Scriptures, Grow in Grace and the knowledge of Christ, be not 
Children in Understanding, but Men. Labour for a sound confirmed Knowledge of 
these Points in the Evidence of them. See that they be deeply rooted in your Minds 
and Hearts, that so You be not an easie prey to such as lie in wait to deceive.’ 
For the want hereof to be condoled is the Unhappiness of many ever learning and 
never coming to the knowledge of, the Truth.!° 


1 Isa. 8. 20. Rev. 21. 18, 109. 2 Jer. 6. 16. Mat. 19.8 Jer. 44. 17. 
SeMatarisre7.) « Joh: 5.00. 4 Luk. to. 26. 
PEViate 15.00; S Joh. 4. 22, (‘Jer.7. 22. 7 Leuntosty 2 


EUANGIS 1 70 TON XT Ol Ss a0.nn 2) beta s.16. © Cor.) 14.20, 
OT Mieleg: why esha e Ay Bertoaes BE Ge 


520 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


IV. That having applyed the Rule of Holy Scripture to all the Articles of this 
Confession, and found the same upon Tryal the Unchangable and Eternal truths of 
God:' You remember and hold them fact [ fast], Contend earnestly for them as 
the Faith once delivered to the Saints, Value them as Your great Charter, the In- 
strument of Your Salvation, the Evidence of your not failing of the Grace of God, 
and receiving a Crown that fadeth not away.? Maintain them, and every of them 
all your dayes with undanted Resolution against all opposition, whatever the event 
be, and the same transmit safe and pure [9] to Posterity: Having bought the Truth, 
on no hand sell it. Believe? the Truth will make you free: Faithful is he that 
hath promised: So shall none take away your Crown. 

Finally, Do not think it enough that your Faith and Order be according to the 
Word of God, but live accordingly.4 It is not enough to believe well, You run 
your selves into the greatest hazzard unless you be careful to live well, and that this 
be,> All your Life and Conversation must be agreeable to the Rule of Gods Word 
This is the Rule of a Christian Conversation and Practical Reformation ® Rest not 
in the form of Godliness, denying the power of it. Stir up an holy Zeal, Strengthen 
the things that remain that are ready to die, Be not carried away with the Corrup- 
tions Temptations and evil Examples of the Times, but be d/ameless & without Re- 
buke, the Sons of God in a froward Generation. "They shall walk with me in 
white, for they are worthy. 

Remember ye our Brethren in this Colony; That we are a part of that Body, 
8for which the Providence of God hath wrought Wonders and are obliged by and 
Accountable for all the Mercies dispensed from the beginning of our Fathers settling 
this Country until now. There he spake with us,? That the practical piety [10] 
and serious Religion of our progenitors is exemplary and for our Imitation,’® and 
will reflect confounding shame on us, if we prove Degenerate. The Lord grant that 
the noble design of our Fathers in coming to this Land, may not be forgotten by us, 
nor by our Children after us, even the Interest of Religion, which we can never Ex- 
change for a Temporal Interest without the Fowlest Degeneracy and most Inexcus- 
able Defection.!!' To Conclude the Solemn Rebukes of Providence from time to 
time in a series of Judgments, and in particular, the General drought in the Summer 
past, together with the grievous Disapointment of our Military Undertaking, the 
Distresses Sickness and Mortality of our Camp cannot successfully be Improved but 
by a self humbling Consideration of our Ways and a thorough Repentance of all 
that ts amtss:}* So will the God of our Fathers be our God, and he will bea 
Wall of Fire round about us and the Glory in the midst of us in this present and all 
succeeding Generations. AMEN. 


[Pp. 11-90 contains the Confession of Faith, identical with 
that adopted at Boston in 1680, and slightly modified from the 
Savoy Declaration of 1658. The full text and variations will be 
found ante, pp. 367-402 of this work. The Saybrook divines added 
proof texts to each article. | 





WINCKAL eh Ch Mhbvole) oy 2 ri COrers:s1ose ) COPt6; 19) a bSalae7omss 
SUB EL hh Nolin iiery Jee sees INA Gs abe, “Tit a. )1%,/493 

5 Gal. 6. 16, Mic. 6. 8. 62 Tim'3: 15. Rev..3. 19. Rev. 32. Phildaizsg 
T Rev.13.94< 8 Fos xil 2. 9 Hosea xii 4. 102 Tim. 1.5. Job8. 8 


112,17. Jer. 2. 21. 12 Isa. 26.9. Gen. 43. 23. Zach. 2. 5. 


PREFACE TO; THE ARTICLES 521 


[p. 91] THE | Heads of Agreement, | Assented to by the 
United Ministers, | formerly called PRESBYTERIAN | and 
CONGREGATIONAL. | And also | Articles | For the Hominz 
istration | or | CHURCH DISCIPLINE | Unanimously | Agreed 
upon and consented to by the | ELDERS and MESSENGERS 
of | the Churches in the Colony of | COMVECT/CUT in New- 
England | Assembled by Delegation at Say-Brook | September goth. 
1708. | | Phil. 3.5. Let us therefore, as many as be per- | fect, 
be thus minded; and tf in any thing ye | be otherwise minded, God 
shall reveal even | this unto you. | Eph. 4 3. Endeavouring to keep the 
Unity of | the Spirit in the bond of Peace. | | Mew London 
Printed by Zhomas Short, 1710 











[92 blank] 


[93] 
The PREFACE. 


Here is no Constitution on Earth hath ever been established on such sure founda- 
tions, nor so fully provided for its subsistance as the Church of God. J¢ being 
built on the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief Cor- 

ner Stone. Hence therefore it hath from its holy hill, beheld the Ruines of the 
greatest States and most flourishing Empires, having continued in safety, free from 
the fatal Accidences of Time, and triumphed not only over the Rage of men, but 
also the repeated Insults of the gates of Hell. And tho’ it hath been often straitned 
as to its extent, and lessened as to its number, yet hath remained firm on its own 
Basis: yea, when most reduced, it hath forever made good that Motto, Depressa 
Resurgo; and so it shall continue to the end of the World: But to the shame of its 
Offenders, the Church hath suffered most from the Wounds, which she hath received 
in the house of her Friends, from those Wolves, that have come to Her in Sheeps 
Cloathing. Damnable Errors and Heresies have arisen from within her, whereby 
she hath sometimes been cast into horrible shades of Darkness, as Rev. 9.2 When 
the bottomless pit was opened, the smoke ascending darkned the Sun and Air. Yet 
[94] when thus grievously Blackned, a Comeliness remained still. Otherwhiles She 
is seen bleeding with the Wounds of Schism and Contention, Offensive and hurtful to 
Her Sacred Head and Members for the Undivided head rejoyceth in an Undivided 
Body Ais undefiled is but one Cant. 6.9. As She becomes divided, She becomes 
defiled: And hereby also the mutual Offices of the respective Members of this Un- 
defiled one are Interrupted to the prejudice of the Whole. Whence follow great dis- 
orders, as when the Eye will not see for the Hand nor the Head take care of the 
Feet, nor our Union to Christ be acknowledged a sufficient bond to establish a rela- 
tion between Members in particular 1 Cor, 12. 27. Gods Providence forever bears 
the upper hand in these Events, who suffers the corrupt Minds of Men to run into 
Errors and Divisions, that the approved may be made manifest 1 Cor 11, 19 Such 
ill minded Persons being threatned with a Wo, that are the Authors or Promoters of 
such Offences. Zhe Atheist endeavours to overthrow the whole Constitution of 
Religion: The Deist to take away all that part of it, that promiseth sinners any 
safety from the Wrath to come, and retain no more than what is enough to condemn 


34 


522 THE PROPOSALS AND THE SAYBROOK PLATFORM 


him, and to take away all excuse for his disobedience Rom. 1.20. The Church of 
Christ hath also been a great sufferer from the Immoralities and disorderly walking 
of those that are related to Her, whose Leaven hath sometimes hazarded the whole 
lump 1 Cor 5.6. Whose un-[95|seemly Practises have given advantage to Enemies 
to speak evil of the Ways of God, and to question the Truth of our holy Religion & 
the sincerity of the Professors thereof. These must be acknowledged to be Sots and 
Blemishes 2. Pet. 2.13. The Wisdom of our Law giver King and Judge, who 
alone hath the Original soveraignty of giving being.to, and laying the Foundations 
of the Church, and whose only is the Legislative power therein, hath given such 
ample Rights & Priviledges to the Church and such Excellent Rules for its Govern- 
ment, as are Inviting to Strangers, “ike a City set on a Hill, Mat. 5. 14. And hath 
lodged the Executive power in approved hands, that those who love the Church may 
be in peace, and Her Enemies may find Her Zerrzdle as an Army with Banners, 
and that She might yield seasonable edification to those that walk Regularly within 
Iler limits, and be able to Discharge Her self of Impenitent and Incorrigible Offend- 
ers Many of the forementioned mischiefs have to our sorrow afflicted the Churches 
within this Government, and by degrees we have fallen under much decay. Where- 
upon our difficulties have been of a long time trouble some, for the healing of our 
Wounds, a more Explicate asserting the Rules of Government sufficiently provided 
in the Holy Word hath been thought highly expedient Wherefore, 

The Honourable, the General Assembly of this Colony out of a Tender regard 
to the [96] welfare of the Churches within the limits of their Government, were pleased 
to appoint the several Elders of each County with Messengers from their Churches 
to meet in Council, in which they should endeavour to agree in some General Rules 
Conformable to the Word of God for a method of Discipline to be practised in our 
Churches These several Councils having met & drawn up some Rules of Church 
Government did by their Delegates meet and Constitute one General Assembly of the 
Churches of this Colony at Say Brook, Sept. 9th. 1708. Who after a full Consent and 
Agreement unto the Confession of Faith Assented unto by the Synod of Loston ; 
Did being Studious of keeping the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of peace, Eph 4. 
2. Agree that the Heads of Agreement Assented to by the United Brethren formerly 
called Presbyterian and Congregational, in England, be observed by the Churches 
throughout this Colony, which are herewith Published, and after Consideration of 
the several draughts of the County Councils, did with a Christian Condescention, and 
Fraternal Amicableness Unanimously Agree to the Articles for the Administration of 
Church Discipline now offered to Publick View, all which being presented, were 
allowed of and Established by the General Assembly of this Colony, as by their Acts 
appears for the better satisfaction of our People, we have undertaken a task, accept- 
able we trust unto many, [g7] tho’ it escape not the Exceptions of some, in subjoyn- 
ing Scriptures for Confirmation of the Heads of Agreement, which we have not seen 
added thereunto. The aforesaid Articles consist in Two Heads, Ze one holding 
Jorth the power of particular Churches in the Management of Discipline confirmed 
by Scriptures annexed, 

The other, serves to preserve promote or recover the Peace and Edification of 
the Churches by the Means of a Consociation of the Elders, and Churches or of an 
Association of Elders: Both which we are agreed have Countenance from the Scrip- 
tures and the Propositions in Answer to the Second Question given by the Synod met 
at Boston 1662! In both which having respect to the Divine Precepts of Fraternal 


1 See azze, pp. 337-339- 


PREFACE TO THE ARTICLES 523 
Union, and that Principle universally acknowledged, Quod tangit omnes debet tractart 
abomnibus. The Scriptures are added for the Illustration of the substance of the 
abovementioned Articles, yet with an Apprehension, that there may be alterations 
made and further Condescentions Agreed upon, which shall afterwards appear nec- 
essary for the Order and Edification of our Churches. 

As we have laboured in this affair to approve our selves unto God, so we are 
cheerful with humble Prayer for his Blessing to recommend the Heads of Agreement 
with the subsequent Articles unto the acceptance and [98] observation of our People, 
hoping till it please the Lord to send forth further light and truth in these more 
Controversal Matters, this Method may be a blessed means of our better Unanimity 
& success in our Lords Work for the Gathering and Edifying of the Body of Christ, 
for which we bespeak the concuring Prayers of all that fear the LORD. 


[ Pp. 99-116 contain the “‘ Heads of Agreement”’ (full text ante, 
pp. 456-462); and the “Articles” (ante, pp. 503-506). To each 
section of both these documents the Saybrook divines added proof 
texts. | 


XVI 
THE PLANT ORS NON ool 


EDITIONS AND REPRINTS! 


I. Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, etc., 1789 
to 1820. Philadelphia, [1847,] pp. 224, 225 (1801). 

II. Proceedings of the General Association of Connecticut, 1801, pp. 4, 5. 

Ill. Connecticut Evangelical Magazine, 11: 116. 

IV. Zebulon Crocker, Catastrophe of the Presbyterian Church, in 1837, in- 
cluding a full view of the recent Theological Controversies in New England, New 
Haven, 1838, pp. II-14. 

V. William S. Kennedy, 7%e Plan of Union. or a History of the Presby- 
tertan and Congregational Churches of the Western Reserve; with Biographical 
Sketches of the early Misstonaries, Hudson, Ohio, 1856, pp. 150, 151. 

VI. Congregational Quarterly, V: 133, 134. 


LITERATURE 


Minutes of Presbyterian General Assembly, and the Proceedings of the General 
Association of Connecticut, for 1800, 1801, 1835, 1837, etc. Zebulon Crocker, as 
above cited. Proceedings of the General Convention of Cong. Ministers and Dele- 
gates . . . at. Albany... October, 1552, New York, 18526 eVecees 
lander, X1: 72-92. The Plan of Union of r&or, etc., and Reasons why it should 
be abandoned, etc., New York, 1852. W.S. Kennedy, as above cited. James H. 
Dill, John D. Pierce, Henry Cowles, John C. Hart, articles on Congregationalism 
in New York, Ohio, and Michigan, Congregational Quarterly, 1: 151-158; Il: 190- 
197; V: 132-142, 248-254. E. H. Gillett, Azstory of the Presbyterian Church, 
Philadelphia, [1864,] passim. C. Cutler, History of Western Reserve College, Cleve- 
land, 1876. Fairchild, Oberlin. the Colony and the College, 1883. Punchard, //zs- 
tory of Congregationalism, V. passim. A. H. Ross, Union Efforts between Congre- 
gationalists and Presbyterians: Results and Lessons, Port Huron, 1889. Papers 
of the Ohio Society of Church History, Vol. I. 


HE eighteenth century was not favorable for Congregational 
afi creed-making. The failure of the movement for stricter 
church government in Massachusetts and its success in 
Connecticut put the two leading colonies of New England on 
somewhat divergent paths. The loss of ministerial influence over 
the civil authorities of the larger colony had been real for a gen- 





1 Neither the editions nor the literature can claim to be exhaustive. For some of the refer- 
ences I am indebted to Prof. F. H. Foster of Pacific Seminary. 


(524) 


CONGREGATIONALISM DECENTRALIZED 525 


eration, but was clearly manifest when the Massachusetts govern- 
ment failed to call a synod in 1725;’ and this tendency to separate 
the interests of church and state increased throughout New Eng- 
land all through the century. It was no longer possible to calla 
general assembly of the churches of New England as a whole, or 
of a province, in the old way, by government authority. And if 
the way of the founders of New England was no longer feasible, _ 
the modern method of voluntary union was not yet possible. The 
whole political tendency of the century was toward the emphasis 
of local independence, and the growth of the democratic element 
in church and state was essentially decentralizing. This inclina- 
tion away from external bonds of union was increased by the sharp 
division of sentiment which manifested itself in many parts of New 
England between the supporters of the revival measures of the 
leaders of the ‘Great Awakening” of 1740-41, and those who 
looked upon religious excitement as perilous. That remarkable 
movement led to the rise of a new school of theology,—that of 
Edwards and his pupils,—and as a consequence theologic differ- 
ences first become a factor of division among the churches. All 
these tendencies, coupled with the low state of religion which 
marked most of the century, made any general synods or councils, 
such as the seventeenth century had seen, impossible; and pro- 
duced a general indifference to what would now be called “‘ denom- 
inational interests” as distinguished from the concerns of the local 
church. 

Meanwhile in Connecticut the working of the Saybrook sys- 
tem was such as to increase the sympathy of the churches for the 
Presbyterians of the Middle Provinces and diminish their intimacy 
of relationship with their brethren of Massachusetts. A wide- 
spread fear of establishment of Episcopacy in the colonies led, 
just before the revolutionary war, to the establishment of an 


annual joint convention of representatives of the Synod of New 


1 The petition to the General Court, signed by Cotton Mather in the name of the Ministers’ 
Convention, is in Hutchinson, 7st. Mass., ed. 1767, I1: 322, 323. The upper House approved, 
but the lower House put off consideration of the question, the Boston Episcopalians appealed to 
England, and the English government disapproved. See also Palfrey, 1V: 454-456. 


526 THE PLAN OF UNION 


York and Philadelphia and the Associations of Connecticut.’ This 
body met from 1766 to 1775, and corresponded with Dissenters in 
England, collected the ecclesiastical legislation of the colonies, 
tried to ascertain the religious preferences of their inhabitants, 
and sought the union of the non-prelatical churches in opposition 
to encroachment. 

The effect of these joint meetings and of the ecclesiastical 
constitution of Connecticut was seen in the declaration of unity in 
all essentials with Presbyterianism adopted by the Hartford North 
Association in 1799,’ and is curiously illustrated by a vote of no 
less representative a body than the Connecticut General Associa- 
tion, in 1805, appointing a committee to “publish a new and elegant 
edition of the ecclesiastical constitution of the Presbyterian Church 


3 


in Connecticut,” * meaning thereby the Saybrook Platform. Under 
such circumstances it is no wonder that, in the eyes of many, the 
differences between Congregationalism and Presbyterianism seemed 
peculiarities of geographical location rather than fundamental dis- 
tinctions in polity. 

It was when the Presbyterians of the Middle States and the 
Congregationalists of Connecticut felt themselves so much one, 
that a home-missionary problem of hitherto unknown importance 
arose, affecting both bodies, and seeming to make codéperation 
doubly desirable. Even before the revolutionary struggle the 
sons of Connecticut had begun to emigrate to what is now Ver- 
mont and central New York. That contest interrupted the 
exodus, but after the war was over the outpouring began again in 
increased volume. By the close of the last century, emigration 
from Connecticut was extensive, and at the dawn of the present 


century was pouring into the region of northern Ohio, which Con- 


1 The Minutes of this Convention were published in 1843 by Rev. David D. Field, under the 
auspices of the Conn. General Association, Winutes of the Convention of Delegates from the 
Synod of N. Y. and Phila., and from the Associations of Conn., etc. Hartford. The propo- 
sition came from the Presbyterian body, to the General Association of Conn. It was heartily ac- 
cepted and a ‘‘ Plan of Union’’ drawn up wherein those to be united in Convention are described as 
‘* Pastors of the Congregational, Consociated, and Presbyterian Churches in North America.’’ All 
jurisdiction over the churches is disclaimed. It was also decided to ask the ministers of Mass., New 
Hampshire, and Rhode Island to send delegates; but the ministers of those provinces, though 
maintaining correspondence with the Convention, preferred not to be represented in its deliberations. 
DOTd.. Pais Oy lO try Do. 

2 Ante, p. 514. 3 Minutes Conn. Gen. Assoc., 1805, p. 5. 


MISSIONARY EFFORTS 527 


necticut had reserved in settlement of its claims to western terri- 
tory.. In Vermont the immigration was of almost pure New 
England origin, and here New England religious institutions soon 
took root; but in New York and Ohio the settlers from Connecti- 
cut encountered other new-comers from Pennsylvania and colonies 
even further southward, who had been trained in Presbyterianism. 

The Connecticut churches were early awake to their obliga- 
tions to their sons and daughters of the dispersion. At its meeting 
in Mansfield in June, 1774, the Connecticut General Association 
voted: * 


‘“ This association taking into Consideration the State of y® Settlements now 
forming in the Wilderness to the Westward & North-westward of us, who are mostly 
destitute of a preached Gospel, many of which are of our Brethren Emigrants from 
this Colony, think it advisable that an attempt should be made to send missionaries 
among them, and for obtaining a Support for such Missionaries would recommend 
it to the several Ministers in this Colony to promote a Subscription among their peo- 
ple for this purpose.” 


This appeal met with encouraging response and two pastors’ 
were directed to be sent out on a tour of “5 or 6 months” in 1775. 
The revolutionary war prevented the carrying out of the plan as 
proposed.* But a considerable sum was collected,® and in 1780 
the Association asked two pastors to act as missionaries in Ver- 
mont.® In 1788 and 1791 the subject was further discussed, and 
in 1792 a missionary was appointed and legislative permission 
sought for the raising of funds.’ The next year eight missionaries 
were named, all settled pastors, who were to go on tours of four 
months each and receive as compensation four and a half dollars 
weekly and an allowance of four dollars a week to supply their 
vacant pulpits.°. The same number, but for the most part new 
men, were sent out in 1794.” —The movement was now fully launched. 
And now in 1798, after having sounded the local Associations of 


the State on the subject through a committee appointed in 1797," 





1 The story of the settlement of Northern Ohio is well told in Hinsdale, Old Northwest, 
New York, 1888. A clearer picture of the conditions of life in these settlements in 1800 is the auto- 
biographic sketch of Rev. Joseph Badger, the first Congregational missionary to the Reserve, in 
Am. Quarterly Register, XIII: 317-328 (Feb., 1841). The Diary of Thomas Robbins, D.D., 
Boston, 1886, also is valuable as illustrating early missionary life. 

2 Records of the General Association, 1738-1799, Hartford, 1888, p. 76. See also Cont. 
Eccles. Hist. Conn., pp. 163, 164. 

3 Records, pp. 79, 80. 4 Jbid., pp. 85, 86. 5 Tbid., p. Ico. 

SIA, Pe 107, -*L0Td.,, PP. 135, E41, 142. © 8 L0ig.,p./148,.- © Léza., p. 154. 8 Tora., pv. 373, 


528 THE PLAN OF UNION 


the General Association of Connecticut organized itself as a Mis- 
sionary Society, the first Congregational missionary society in 
America, having as its object, ‘to christianize the Heathen in 
North America, and to support and promote Christian Knowledge 
in the new settlements within the United States.”’ In 1800 the 
Connecticut Evangelical Magazine was established, designed to 
spread a knowledge of missions, as well as to be a medium of dis- 
cussion and a repository of Christian biography, and its profits, 
which were considerable,” were turned over to the “ Missionary 
Society of Connecticut.” In 1802 that society was chartered by 
the State. The good example of Connecticut led to the formation 
of a missionary association in Massachusetts in 1799.° 

Meanwhile the relations between the Congregationalists of 
Connecticut and the Presbyterian General Assembly were becom- 
ing very friendly. In 1790 the General Association voted that a 
further degree of union with the Presbyterians was desirable, and 
a committee of correspondence was appointed to secure this 
result. The General Assembly was more than willing;* in 1791 a 
joint committee representing it and the Connecticut Association 
met at New Haven and provided for united representation.® The 
doings of these commissioners were approved by the Association 
and the Assembly in 1792; and three representatives of the Con- 
necticut churches were sent to the General Assembly.’ The next year 
three Presbyterian delegates took their seats in the General 
Association, and on the request of the Presbyterians in 1794 it was 
agreed by both sides that the representatives of each body should 
have full right to vote in the meetings of the other.* And not 
only did they exercise this privilege, but plans for Presbyterian 
denominational growth, like the establishment of a seminary in 


Kentucky,’ were referred to, and approved by, the Connecticut 


1 The Constitution may be found /é7d., pp. 177-180. See also Conn. Evang. Mag., 1: 13. 

2 The profits of the first year were reported at $1,759.60. /dzd., II: 80. 

3 See Evang. Mag., 1: 352-356. 

4 Records of the Gen. Association, 1738-1799, Pp. 133- 

5 See Minutes of the Gen. Assembly, 1791, pp. 20, 33 

6 The minutes of the meeting of this joint committee are given in the ec. of the Gen. Asso- 
ctation, pp. 189-191. They agreed that representatives should not vote. 

7 Association Records, p. 142. Minutes of the Gen. Assenbly, pp. 52, 64. 

8 Association Rec., p. 154; Gen. Assembly, p. 8o. 

9 Association Rec., p. 160. 


STEPS TOWARD THE UNION 529 


Association. From this degree of codperation to union in mis- 
sionary enterprise was but a step. Presbyterian and Congrega- 
tional missionaries were working in the same fields and were in 
constant contact. Accordingly, in 1800, the question of a perma- 
nent adjustment of the relations of the two polities on missionary 
ground was raised in the Connecticut General Association.’ There 
is every reason to believe that the originator of the discussion was 
the younger Jonathan Edwards, long the pastor of the Second 
Church in New Haven, but now president of Union College and a 
delegate from the General Assembly to the Connecticut body.’ 
His residence in a section of the state of New York then rapidly 
filling with settlers had familiarized him with the questions in- 
volved, while his relations to both denominations were such as to 
give him little preference for the polity of either. The Associa- 
tion considered the matter favorably and appointed Edwards on a 
committee, associating with him Rev. Dr. Nathan Williams of 
Tolland, Rev. Nathan Strong of Hartford,* and Rev. Jonathan 
Freeman,* a Presbyterian delegate like Edwards representing the 
General Assembly, giving them instructions “to prepare a report 


on that subject.” This they did, and the next day °— 


‘* The following report of the Committee on the friendly intercourse of Mission- 
aries was read, considered, and approved. 

‘““The Rev? Mess'® John Smalley,® Levi Hart,’ and Samuel Blatchford ® are 
hereby appointed a Committee of this General Association, to confer with a com- 
mittee to be appointed by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, if they 
see fit to appoint such Committee, to consider the measures proper to be adopted 
both by this Association and said Assembly, to prevent alienation, to promote har- 
mony and to establish, as far as possible, an uniform system of Church government, 
between those habitants of the new Settlements, who are attached to the Presby- 
terian form of church Government, and those who are attached to the congregational 
form: and to make report to this Association. Any two of the said committee are 
hereby empowered to act. 





1 MS. Records of 1So0, p. 18. The meeting was at Norfolk. 

2 Jonathan Edwards was born at Northampton, Mass., in 1745; graduated at Princeton in 
1765; pastor at New Haven, 1769-1795, pastor at Colebrook, Conn., 1796-1799; president of Union 
CoWNege, Schenectady, N. Y., to his death in Aug. 1, 1801. In gifts and experiences he was curiously 
like his father. Edwards’s name heads the list in the record, but Williams seems to have been 
chairman of the committee. 

3 Williams and Strong were trustees of the Conn. Miss. Society. 

4 Of the Presbytery of Hudson, churches of Hopewell and Deer Park. 

5 MS. Records of General Association, 800. See also Minutes of General Assembly, p. 212. 

6 New Britain. 7 Griswold. 

8 Bridgeport. These three were the regular delegates to the next meeting of the General 
Assembly. 


530 THE PLAN OF UNION 


‘“Resolved that a copy of the foregoing paragraph be transmitted to the said 
Gen. Assembly, and that they be respectfully requested by the Moderator of this G. 
Association to concurr in the measure now proposed.” 


At the same time the Association requested the trustees of 
the Connecticut Missionary Society to direct their missionaries to 
promote friendly intercourse with the Presbyterians in their fields. 

Having thus the support of the Connecticut churches, the pro- 
position for agreement came before the General Assembly in May, 
1801. That body was favorably inclined and voted as follows:’ 


‘“The Rev. Drs. Edwards,? McKnight,? and Woodhull,* the Rev. Mr. Blatch- 
ford,’ and Mr. Hutton,® were appointed a committee, to consider and digest a plan 
of government for the churches in the new settlements agreeably to the proposal of 
the General Association of Connecticut, and report the same as soon as convenient.” 


Two days later’ their report was “taken up and considered, 
and after mature deliberation on the same, approved” by the 
General Assembly. This report, the celebrated Plax of Union, 
reads thus: ° 


PLAN OF UNION. 


“Regulations adopted by the General Assembly of the Pres- 
byterian Church in America, and by the General Association of 
the State of Connecticut, (provided said Association agree to 
them,) with a view to prevent alienation, and to promote union 
and harmony in those new settlements which are composed of 
inhabitants from these bodies. 

1, It is strictly enjoined on all their missionaries to the 
new settlements, to endeavour, by all proper means, to promote 
mutual forbearance, and a spirit of accommodation between those 
inhabitants of the new settlements who hold the Presbyterian, 
and those who hold the Congregational form of church govern- 
ment. 

2. If in the new settlements any church of the Congrega- 
tional order shall settle a minister of the Presbyterian order, that 
church may, if they choose, still conduct their discipline according 
to Congregational principles, settling their difficulties among them- 
selves, or by a council mutually agreed upon for that purpose. But 


1 Gen. Assenibly, Minutes of 1801, pp. 212, 221. 

2 Jonathan Edwards, whom we have before met in Connecticut. 3 Of New York city. 

4 Of Freehold, N. J. 5 Delegate from Conn. Gen. Association. 

8 A layman, a ruling elder of the Albany Presbytery and an associate of Edwards. 

7 They reported the day after appointment but the business was laid over. Gen. Assentbly 
Minutes, p. 222. 

8 Text from /ézd., pp. 224, 225. 


TEXT OF (THE ‘PLAN:” 531 
if any difficulty shall exist between the minister and the church, 
or any member of it, it shall be referred to the Presbytery to 
which the minister shall belong, provided both parties agree to 
it; if not, to a council consisting of an equal number of Presby- 
terians and Congregationalists, agreed upon by both parties. 

3. If a Presbyterian church shall settle a minister of Con- 
gregational principles, that church may still conduct their disci- 
pline according to Presbyterian principles, excepting that if a 
difficulty arise between him and his church, or any member of it, 
the cause shall be tried by the Association to which the said 
minister shall belong, provided both parties agree to it; otherwise 
by a council, one-half Congregationalists and the other Presby- 
terians, mutually agreed upon by the parties. 

4. If any congregation consist partly of those who hold the 
Congregational form of discipline, and partly of those who hold 
the Presbyterian form, we recommend to both parties that this be 
no obstruction to their uniting in one church and settling a min- 
ister ; and that in this case the church choose a standing commit- 
tee from the communicants of said church, whose business it shall 
be to call to account every member of the church who shall conduct 
himself inconsistently with the laws of Christianity, and to give 
judgment on such conduct. That if the person condemned by 
their judgment bea Presbyterian, he shall have liberty to appeal to 
the Presbytery ; if he be a Congregationalist, he shall have liberty 
to appeal to the body of the male communicants of the church. 
In the former case, the determination of the Presbytery shall be 
final, unless the church shall consent to a farther appeal to the 
Synod, or to the General Assembly ; and in the latter case, if the 
party condemned shall wish for a trial by a mutual council, the 
cause shall be referred to such a council. And provided the said 
standing committee of any church shall depute one of themselves 
to attend the Presbytery, he may have the same right to sit and 
act in the Presbytery as a ruling elder of the Presbyterian church. 

On motion, 

Resolved, That an attested copy of the above plan be made by 
the Stated Clerk, and put into the hands of the delegates from this 
Assembly to the General Association, to be by them laid before 
that body, for their consideration ; and that if it should be ap- 
proved by them, it go into immediate operation.” 


532 THE PLAN OF UNION 


The Plan of Union, thus approved by the Presbyterian legisla- 
tive body, was duly laid before the Connecticut General Association 
at its meeting in Litchfield, June 16, 1801, by the three Presby- 
terian delegates, Rev. Dr. John McKnight, of the committee 
which prepared it, Rev. Archibald Alexander,’ and Rev. John B. 
Linn,’ and promptly ratified without alteration.* 

This agreement was entered into with perfect good faith and 
with entire cordiality on both sides. It was intended to affect 
only the missionary churches on the frontier of civilization, and 
the framers seem to have had little thought that those churches 
would ever grow to be a great factor in American Christian life, 
and that what was well enough as an expedient in raw communities 
would have a different aspect when these wilderness plantations 
grew populous. 

The Plan of Union was probably as fair an arrangement as 
could have been devised. If some of its features were non-Con- 
gregational, like the “standing committee” court of discipline in 
a mixed church, others were non-Presbyterian, as, for instance, the 
granting of the rights of a ruling elder in a Presbytery to a church 
delegate. It provided that when church and pastor were in dis- 
agreement the case should be tried according to the system which 
the minister represented, if both parties agreed thereto; if not, 
then by a mutual council equally drawn from the adherents to 
either polity. To churches and church members the rights of 
their respective systems were reserved. 

But in actual practice the P/an produced Presbyterian churches 
in a large proportion of the instances in which it was applied to 
pure. Congregational material. Estimates are of course some- 
what conjectural, but a contemporary observer of the early work- 
ings of the Plan judged that by 1828 it had added “ more than six 
hundred” to the Presbyterian churches in New York and Pennsyl- 
vania, and the states and territories lying west of them;* and a 
careful student of recent date has affirmed that “the Plan of Union 


transformed over two thousand churches, which were in origin 





1 Afterward the distinguished professor at Princeton, at this time of Virginia. 
2 Pastor First Presb. Ch., Philadelphia. 3 Minutes of Gen. Association, 1801, Pp. 5. 
4 Z. Crocker, Catastrophe of the Presbyterian Ch., Pp. 44. 


WORKING OF THE “PLAN” 533 


and usages Congregational, into Presbyterian churches.”* As a 
speaker at the Albany Convention of 1852 declared, “they have 
milked our Congregational cows, but have made nothing but 
Presbyterian butter and cheese.”? But it would be unjust to 
blame the Presbyterians for this state of affairs. The fault was 
chiefly Congregational. The feeling was widespread in New Eng- 
land that Congregationalism could not thrive in new communities, 
that a “stronger government” was desirable for frontier towns.° 
Connecticut consociationism had fostered distrust in regard to the 
Congregationalism of the rest of New England, and a large pro- 
portion of the emigrants were from Connecticut. Men of Con- 
gregational training were prepared to look upon Presbyterianism 
as possessed of much that was attractive. On the other hand, if 
the denominational consciousness of Congregationalism was weak 
that of Presbyterianism was awake and considerably assertive.* 
But two circumstances in particular worked to bring about the 
superior success of Presbyterianism, especially in Ohio, and to a 
considerable extent elsewhere. ‘The first was that Congregational 
ministers largely became members of Presbyteries. That this was 
the fact was due in part to Congregational apathy, in part to 
geographical considerations. The Plax of Union had contemplated 
the founding of Associations as well as Presbyteries on missionary 
soil.” But the Presbyteries of Pennsylvania were friendly and 
close at hand. That of Beaver spread its protection over the 
whole of the Western Reserve when the settlements began, minis- 
ters were few, and of those few a large proportion were Presby- 
terians in the pay of the Connecticut Society, the scantiness of the 
salaries rendering it harder to get men from New England than 
from Pennsylvania. Fellowship seemed worth more than form, and it 
was natural that ministers of Congregational views should prefer 
to join an existing Presbytery rather than organize a feeble Asso- 
ciation. When numbers increased an effort was made to organize 





1 The late Rev. Dr. A. H. Ross, Unzon Efforts between Cong. and Presb.: Results and 
Lessons. Port Huron, 1889, p. 7. 

2 Rev. Edward A. Lawrence, then of Marblehead, Proceedings of the Gen. Convention held 
at Albany, etc., p. 71. 

3 Dr. Heman Humphrey of Pittsfield, at Albany Convention. Speech, /dzd., p. 70. 

4 Compare speech of Rev. Asa Turner of Denmark, Iowa, at Albany Convention, /dzd., pp. 
71-73; see also Cong. Quart., V: 137. 5 Plan of Union, sec. 3 


534 THE PLAN OF UNION 


Associations in 1812-14, but it was defeated by the vigorous 
resistance of one or two determined Presbyterians and the good- 
natured lukewarmness of Congregationalists.’ It was not till 1834 
that a “Congregational Union” was founded in the Western 
Reserve, and not till 1836 that an Association was organized, and 
something of this experience was that of most of the territories 
in which the Plan of Union was put in operation. Now it was 
but natural that what ministers thought good for themselves they 
thought good for the churches, They joined the Presbyteries, 
their churches naturally followed in many instances, for to remain 
Congregational was to lack fellowship. 

Closely connected with this cause for Presbyterian ascendency 
was a second. A church once joined toa Presbytery could not 
readily relinquish the connection. As Dr. Ross has expressed it:? 
‘the Plan provided no way for the withdrawal of a Congregational church from a 
Presbytery. . . . On Congregational principles a church may by majority vote 


carry itself and its property into a willing Presbytery; but on Presbyterian principles 
no church can withdraw from an unwilling Presbytery by majority vote.” 


Add to these two considerations the fact that western Congre- 
gationalism, when it dared to show an independent spirit, was 
viewed by many in New England, especially after the rise of Ober- 
lin with its Arminianly inclined type of theology, as infected with 
doctrinal novelties from which churches more under Presbyterian 
control were supposedly exempt,* and it is no wonder that for 
years the Congregationalists of New England beheld the steady 
swelling of the ranks of Presbyterianism through their westward 
migrating sons and daughters. 

But though the Plax of Union thus added to the number of 
Presbyterian churches, it by no means satisfied all Presbyterians. 
The decade of 1830 to 1840 was one of much theologic discussion 


1 The Presbyterian champion was Rev. Thomas Barr ; see on this matter Cowles, O70 Congrega- 
tional, Cong. Quart., V: 137-139; Hart, Cong. tx Ohio, Ibid., V: 248-253; Punchard, Congrega- 
ttonalism, V : 198-216. 

2 Union Efforts between Cong. and Presb.: Results and Lessons, p. 3. Other reasons for 
dissatisfaction with the workings of the Plax of Union are given by Dr. Ross and by Prof. Cowles 
(Cong. Quart., V: 134-136). Its results in Western New York are described by Rev. J. C. Dill, 
Cong. Quart., 1: 151-158; in Michigan by J. D. Pierce, /éz7d., Il: 190-197. See also Punchard, 
V: passim. 

3 This unjust suspicion of the western churches was wide-spread. Compare Vew Englander, 
XI: 75-78; Cong. Quart., I1: 196; and especially the debates and resolutions of the Albany Con- 
vention of 1852, when it was a prime subject of discussion, Proceedings, pp. 13, 14, 53-63. 


DISSATISFACTION WITH THE “ PLAN” 535 


in New England and the Presbyterian field. The stricter Presby- 
terians had long looked upon many of the representatives of New 
England “new divinity” as of questionable orthodoxy, and this 
feeling had been intensified when the teachings of Prof. Nathaniel 
W. Taylor at New Haven began to cause serious division in Con- 
necticut Congregationalism and led to the founding, in 1834, of a 
conservative theological seminary at East Windsor, Conn. The 
points in dispute related chiefly to the nature and purpose of sin, 
and the extent of human inability to turn to God; and discussion 
in New England between the supporters and opponents of “ New 
Haven theology” waxed exceedingly bitter.’ 

While these disputes excited New England, similar doctrinal 
questions agitated the Presbyterian church, and New England dis- 
cussions were transplanted to that part of the Presbyterian body 
which had been largely drawn from New England,—the portion 
formed under the Plax of Union. ‘To the more conservative Pres- 
byterians, Rev. Drs. Lyman Beecher of Cincinnati and Albert 
Barnes of Philadelphia, seemed heretical; while the churches of 
New York and Ohio largely looked upon them as champions. The 
trials of these distinguished men on charges of doctrinal unsound- 
ness increased the bitterness between the “ Old School” and “ New 
School” factions;” and, to the heated thought of the conserva- 
tives, New England seemed the source of false doctrine and the 
churches formed under the Plan of Union peculiarly exposed to 
error owing to their lack of a full Presbyterian constitution. The 
“Old School” party, desirous of cutting loose from what they 
believed a dangerous connection with Congregationalists, exalted 
denominational enterprises and discountenanced the further use of 
union channels of missionary agency, like the American Board of 
Foreign Missions and the American Home Missionary Society; the 


“New School” favored these common societies. Feeling grew; 


1 An excellent summary of Dr. Taylor’s views is that given by Prof. Fisher, Schaff/-Herzog 
Cyclopedia, 111: 2306. A good idea of the spirit in which the discussion was carried on may be 
gained from Zebulon Crocker, Catastrophe of the Presb. Ch. in 1837, including a full view of 
the recent Theological Controversies in New England, New Haven, 1838. Crocker gives an ex- 
tended bibliography of the Taylor-Tyler controversy. 

2 For these trials and the general story of the abolition of the Plax of Union and the division 
of the Presbyterian Church, see Gillett, Wzs¢. of the Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia [1864], 
II: 443-552. 


536 THE PLAN OF UNION 


in 1834 a memorial, drawn up by conservatives in the vicinity of 
Cincinnati, denounced the Plan of Union to the General Assembly 
and charged the Synods formed in accordance with its provisions with 
dangerous laxness in their administration and with the toleration 
of false doctrine.’ The Assembly, however, did not hear the 
prayer of the memorialists. But the conservatives persisted, and 
called a convention of ‘Old School” sympathizers to meet at 
Pittsburg in the spring of 1835.” It was largely attended* and 
denounced the Plan of Union once more. In the Assembly of 
1835, which followed this convention, the “ Old School” party was. 
in the majority, and favored a discontinuance of the Plan of Union, 
going so far as to vote: * 

‘*that our brethren of the General Association of Connecticut, be, and they hereby 


are, respectfully requested to consent that said Plan shall be, from and after the next 
meeting of that Association, declared to be annulled.” 


Curiously, this vote was never presented to the Connecticut 
body. 

But in 1836 the “Old School” sympathizers were unable to 
control the Assembly, and their attempt to condemn Albert Barnes 
and the “New School” teaching failed.® Of course nothing 
adverse to the Plan of Union was done. Alarmed at their defeat, 
the “Old School” party now once more gathered a preliminary 
convention, in the spring of 1837, at Philadelphia; this body 
addressed a memorial to the Assembly about to be convened, 
repeating the charges of doctrinal unsoundness, insisting on the 
abrogation of the Plan of Union, and demanding that every Pres- 
bytery not fully Presbyterian in its organization be cut off from 
the church." And when the Assembly met on May 18, 1837, it was 
found that, as in the body of 1835, the majority was on the “ Old 
School” side. Having the upper hand once more the conservatives. 
now pushed their cause. The memorial of the convention of 1837 


was promptly taken up,” and on May 22d, the following report was 
adopted: ° 





1 Jétd., 463-485. 2 Tbtd., 488-491. 

3 **47 Presbyteries and 13 minorities of Presbyteries were represented.’’ Jézda., 490. 

4 [b¢d., 491. Crocker, Catastrophe, p. 36. 

5 Gen. Assem. Minutes, of 1836, pp. 268-271. 6 Gillett, Hest. Presb. Ch., 11: 497-499.. 
7 Minutes of 1837, p. 418. 8 Jbid., pp. 419, 420. 


ABROGATED BY PRESBYTERIANS 537 


‘In regard to the relation existing between the Presbyterian and Congregational 
Churches, the committee recommend the adoption of the following resolutions : 

“‘t, That between these two branches of the American Church, there ought, 
in the judgment of this Assembly, to be maintained sentiments of mutual respect and 
esteem, and for that purpose no reasonable efforts should be omitted to preserve a 
perfectly good understanding between these branches of the Church of Christ. 

“‘2. That it is expedient to continue the plan of friendly intercourse, between 
this Church and the Congregational Churches of New England, as it now exists.” 


So far all was plain sailing; the real meaning of the report was 
in the third resolution, and on that heated debate ensued. It was 
not till the next afternoon that the test came; by a vote of 129 
to 123 it was ordered that the question be put,’ and by 143 
votes to 110 it was declared: ’ 

‘*3, But as the ‘ Plan of Union’ adopted for the new settlements, in 1801, was 
originally an unconstitutional act on the part of that Assembly —these important 
standing rules having never been submitted to the Presbyteries—and as they were 
totally destitute of authority as proceeding from the General Association of Connecti- 
cut, which is invested with no power to legislate in such cases, and especially to 
enact laws to regulate churches not within her limits; and as much confusion and 
irregularity have arisen from this unnatural and unconstitutional system of union, 


therefore, it is resolved, that the Act of the Assembly of 1801, entitled a ‘ Plan of 
Union,’ be, and the same is hereby abrogated.” 


The “Old School” party having thus begun, its other projects 
were soon brought to vote. The Synod of the Western Reserve 
was declared no part of the Presbyterian Church, since formed 
under the Plan of Union.’ For the same alleged reasons the Synods 
of Utica, Geneva, and Genesee were next excluded; the operations 
of the American Home Missionary Society, and the American Edu- 
cation Society were declared “exceedingly injurious to the peace 
and purity of the Presbyterian Church;”’ a list of doctrinal errors 
was condemned; and the Philadelphia Presbytery, to which Albert 
Barnes belonged, ordered dissolved. Of course there could be but 
one outcome. ‘The Presbyterian Church was rent in sunder; and 
the next year, 1838, saw two bodies, each claiming to be the General 
Assembly. Of these, the “Old School” body held to the acts of 
1837, while the “ New School” still maintained the Plan of Union 
and codperated in missionary enterprise with the Congregationalists. 

The action of the Assembly came to the ears of the Connecti- 

1 [bid., p. 421. 2 bid. 


3 The facts in this paragraph may be found in the Minutes of 1837, Dasszm. 


eke 


538 THE PLAN OF UNION 


cut General Association at its meeting in New Milford in June, 
1837, though for the first time in years no Presbyterian delegates 
were present. But no very positive action was taken. A com- 
mittee was appointed to consider the matter, but its report was 
referred to the next Association meeting, “not intending by this 
postponement to imply consent to the abrogation of the Plan of 
Union.” ' But the trustees of the Connecticut Missionary Society 
presented areport to the Association which was really pusillanimous:? 


‘* The ‘ Plan of Union’ between the General Association of Connecticut, and the 
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church,— under which so much good has been 
accomplished, and so many churches constituted by the Missionaries of our Society, 
was dissolved at the late meeting of the General Assembly. The Synod of the 
Western Reserve has also been declared not to be a portion of the Presbyterian 
Church. What course the Synod will take, in consequence of this measure, the 
Directors are not informed ; but as their exclusion was chiefly owing to their want of 
a complete Presbyterian organization, and not to error in doctrine, we may still con- 
gratulate the Society that its labors in this section of our country have not been in 
vain ; and it may continue its benefactions to these churches, as constituting an in- 
teresting part of the body of Christ.” 


The next General Association, that of 1838, voted “that with 
respect to the Plan of Union, all action of this Body be for the 
present suspended.”* And so the matter rested. 

But while these events were in progress, Congregationalism 
was at last beginning to wake up to a degree of denominational 
self-recognition. Men began to feel that it had an independent 
mission outside of New England. Its western churches were 
demonstrating their right to be. Signs of this quickening sense 
of its own value appeared in the organization of State Associations 
on what had been fields of missionary effort under the Plan of 
Union. Such an organization was effected in New York in 1834, 
the Western Reserve followed in 1836, then came Iowa in 18 40, 
Michigan in 1842, Illinois in 1844, all of Ohio in 1852, and Indiana 
in 1858. Western Congregationalism felt that it deserved recogni- 
tion rather than distrust, and the spirit of the denomination at 
last began to stir in the long apathetic frame. On October 5, 
1852, there gathered at Albany, New York, the first meeting of a 
synodical character, representative of Congregationalism as a 
whole, which had assembled since the Cambridge body of 1646-8, 


1 Proceedings of Gen. Association, 1837, pp. 5, 9. 2 Jétd., p. 13. 3 Jbid., 1838, p. 8. 


THE ALBANY CONVENTION, 1852 539 


This “ Convention,”’’ as it styled itself, came together on the call 
of the General Association of New York, which had invited all 
Congregational churches in the United States to send pastors and 
delegates. The response had been hearty, and the body numbered 
four hundred and sixty-three, from seventeen States, and includ- 
ing in its membership the leaders of the denomination. Its busi- 
ness, as announced by its Business Committee, of which Rev. Dr. 
Leonard Bacon of New Haven was chairman, was to discuss:? 


‘*y, The construction and practical operation of the ‘ Plan of Union between 
Presbyterians and Congregationalists,’ agreed upon by the General Assembly of the 
Presbyterian Church, and the General Association of Connecticut, in 1801. 

2. The building of Church Edifices at the West. 

3. The system and operations of the American Home Missionary Society. 

4. The intercourse between the Congregationalists of New England and those 
of other States. 

5. The local work and responsibility of a Congregational Church. 

6. The bringing forward of Candidates for the Ministry. 

7. The re-publication of the Works of our standard Theological writers.” 


The first item, that relating to the P/an of Union, was referred 
to a committee of ten, “two from New England, and one from 
each of the other States represented,’* and after a full debate,‘ 
the following report was unanimously adopted:° 


‘“Whereas, the Plan of Union formed in 1801, by the General Assembly of the: 
Presbyterian Church and the General Association of Connecticut, is understood to 
have been repudiated by the said Assembly before the schism in that body of 1838, 
though this year acknowledged as still in force by the General Assembly which met 
last at Washington, D. C.;® and 

Whereas, many of our Presbyterian brethren, though adhering to this Plan in 
some of its provisions, do not, it is believed, maintain it in its integrity; especially 
in virtually requiring Congregational Ministers settled over Presbyterian Churches, 
and Congregational Churches having Presbyterian Ministers, to be connected with 
Presbyteries ; and 

Whereas, whatever mutual advantage has formerly resulted from this Plan to 
the two denominations, and whatever might yet result from it if acted upon impar-. 
tially, its operation is now unfavorable to the spread and permanence of the Congre- 
gational polity, and even to.the real harmony of these Christian communities :— 


1 For the doings of this body see Proceedings of the General Convention of Cong. Minis- 
ters and Delegates in the United States, held at Albany, N. Y., on the 5th, 6th, 7th, and Sth 
of Oct., 1852. New York, 1852. Compare also Vew Englander, X1: 72-92; and Dexter, Cong. 
Qs Seen, Pp. 515. 

2 Proceedings, etc., pp. II, 13. 

8 [bid., pp. 12,14. Oregon and the District of Columbia, probably as not concerned, were 
not represented on the committee. 

4 A full report of the debate is given /37d., pp. 69-76. 

5 Ibid., pp. 19, 20. 6 J. e., the ‘* New School’’ Assembly. 


540 THE PLAN OF UNION 


Resolved, ist. That in the judgment of this Convention it is not deemed ex- 


pedient that new Congregational Churches, or Churches heretofore independent, 
become connected with Presbyteries. 


2d. That in the evident disuse of the said Plan, according to its original de- 
sign, we deem it important, and for the purposes of union sufficient, that Congrega- 
tionalists and Presbyterians exercise toward each other that spirit of love which the 
Gospel requires, and which their common faith is fitted to cherish; that they accord 
to each other the right of pre-occupancy, where but one Church can be maintained ; 
and that, in the formation of such a Church, its ecclesiastical character and relations 
be determined by a majority of its members. 

3d. That in respect to those Congregational Churches which are now connected 
with Presbyteries,— either on the above-mentioned Plan, or on. those of 1808 and 
1813,! between Congregational and Presbyterian bodies in the State of New York,— 
while we would not have them violently sever their existing relations, we counsel 
them to maintain vigilantly the Congregational privileges which have been guaranteed 
them by the Plans above mentioned, and to see to it that while they remain con- 


nected with Presbyteries, the true intent of those original arrangements be impartially 
carried out.” 


The Convention also passed resolutions discountenancing 
charges of doctrinal unsoundness and disorder in practice vaguely 
made against the western churches, and urging a more intimate 
acquaintance between east and west.’ Its great work of practical 
value in denominational extension was its call for $50,000 (which 
proved $61,891 when the response had been made to the appeal*) 
for the erection of church-edifices in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, 
Iowa, Ilinois, Missouri, Indiana, and Minnesota.* From the meet- 
ing of the Albany Convention there has been growing sympathy 
between all branches of Congregationalism, east and west, and a 
growing self-respect and confidence in its owa right to be. 

The Plan of Union was now no more. Only the “ New School” 
body regarded it as of any value, and they were pretty much con- 
vinced of its uselessness. As denominational consciousness grew 
on either side, churches formed under it sought their own affinities. 
It had proved itself essentially a failure. Formed by good men, 
with the best of intentions, it did not and could not secure the 
harmony between the two systems that was desired. It was sure 
to lead to misunderstandings. The churches planted under its 





1 Some hints regarding these local modifications of the Plax of Union may be found in 
Gillett, H7st. Presb. Ch., 11: 107, 112-114; and Punchard, V: 56-59. 

2 Proceedings, etc., pp. 13, 14. 

3 Reports of the Sec. and Treas. of the Central Con. appointed by the Albany Cong. 
Convention for disbursing the Fifty Thousand Dollar Building Fund, New York, 1856, p. 6. 

4 Proceedings, etc., pp. 16-18, 22-24. 


TEE ee eANY CAVRAILURE 541 


rules were in an anomalous position, neither Congregational nor 
Presbyterian. On the whole it must be said, that efficient as the 
Plan of Union seemed at the time of its formation in gathering 
together the feeble benevolences of the churches and in giving 
the Gospel message to remote settlements, it would have been 
better had it never been made. 


XVII 
THEMENGLISH DECLARATIONS Olas cs 


EDITIONS AND REPRINTS 


T. Minutes of the Congregational Union of England and Wales for 1833, 
pp. 23-28. The Declaration was issued in a large edition separately as a tract by 
the Union, and since 1858 has been annually published in the English Congrega- 
tional Year-LBook, 

II. In Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, New York, 1877, III: 730-734. 

III. In Waddington, Congregational History, 1V (1800-1850): 653-656. 


SOURCES 

Documents Connected with the Formation and Early Proceedings of the Congre- 
gational Union of England and Wales, Reprinted [London], 1839. 

Congregational Magazine, London, 1831, 2, 3, passim, 


LITERATURE 


Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 1: 833-835. Dexter, Cong. as seen, etc., pp. 
674, 675. Stoughton, Religion in England from 1800 to 1850, London, 1884, I: 
102-112. 


HE attempted union of the Presbyterians and Congregation- 
at alists of England into a single body, after the Toleration 
Act of 1689 had freed Non-conformists from their worst 

legal disabilities, has been described in an earlier chapter, and the 
failure of this association has been pointed out.’ The immediate 
effect of the release of the Non-conformists from active persecution 
was not the growth which might have been expected. The old 
Puritan flame had burned low, the closing years of the seventeenth 
and the beginning of the eighteenth centuries were seasons of 
spiritual deadness in England as well as America, and a cold intel- 
lectuality in the pulpit took the place, to a large degree, of the 
Puritan earnestness. From 1717 onward, discussions regarding the 
Trinity rent the Presbyterian churches, which constituted the 
most numerous of the Dissenting bodies at the beginning of the 
eighteenth century, and so swept the churches of that order away 


1 Ante, pp. 441-452. 


(542) 


CONGREGATIONALISM REVIVED 543 


from their ancient faith that by the year 1750 they were prevail- 
ingly Arian, and by 1800 Unitarian.’’ These errors scarcely touched 
the Congregational body; and, as a consequence, as the last cen- 
tury wore on, Congregationalism increased and Presbyterianism 
decreased until the former became the more influential in English 
religious life.? But, in spite of such conspicuous lights in its min- 
istry as Isaac Watts and Philip Doddridge, the Congregational 
denomination did not really flourish; associational meetings were 
largely neglected,* congregations dwindled, and other evidences of 
decline were apparent, until the great Wesleyan revival awoke new 
life in all Non-conformist circles. None of the older bodies of Dis- 
senters felt and profited by that movement more than the Congre- 
gationalists, and to the evangelical impulse thus received the 
modern growth of English Congregationalism is largely due. 
This new life brought with it desire for extension and for 
further fellowship in religious work. As a consequence, Associa- 
tions were revived where they had fallen into decay, new ones 
were formed,* and the last few years of the eighteenth century 
saw the beginnings of a missionary activity at home and abroad 
which continued in increasing power into the present century. 
The denomination grew in consciousness of its real unity. By 
1806 the London Board, which had administered Congregational 
funds since the breach of the old Union based on the Heads of 
Agreement, proposed a General Union of the churches of our order 
in England, but the time was not yet quite ready.® In Scotland 
matters moved more rapidly, probably because the Congregational 


1 Arianism was popularized in England by William Whiston (1667-1752) Prof. at Cambridge. 
Traces of Arian sentiments may be found in Milton, Locke, and earlier writers. Whiston’s most 
influential book, Primitive Christianity Revived, was published in 1711. These views were em- 
braced by Joseph Hallet and James Pierce, Presbyterian ministers at Exeter, as early as 1717, and 
though strenuously opposed, widely permeated the Presbyterian body. See Bogue & Bennett, W7s¢. 
of Dissenters, ed. London, 1833, Il: 165-197; and Stoughton, Religion tn England front 1500 to 
1850, London, 1884, I: 205-229. 

2 Stoughton, Religion in Eng. under Q. Anne and the Georges, London, 1878, II: 247. 

3 Compare Bogue & Bennett, /4zd., II: 282. 

4 7bid., 11: 565. By 1808 the authors were able to say that there was ‘‘scarcely a county”’ 
in southern England in which Associations were not vigorously at work. Stoughton states that the 
first of the modern Cong. Associations of ministers and churches was that formed in Devonshire in 
1785; and the second in Kent in 1792; Religion in England under Q. Anne and the Georges, 11; 
272. Probably some had never died out. 

5 Ante, p. 452. 6 Stoughton, Religion 7x Eng., 1800-1850, 11: 104. 


544 THE ENGLISH DECLARATION OF 1833 


churches were much fewer in number; and a meeting at Edin- 
burgh, in November, 1812, resolved on a Union for that country,— 
the first annual meeting of the organization being held on May 
GA TGLaae 

But, as the third decade of the present century drew to a close, 
the political and ecclesiastical condition of England made a con- 
solidation of denominational interests seem increasingly desirable, 
The industrial changes, the agitation which resulted in the aboli- 
tion of Test and Corporation Acts in 1828 and in Catholic emanci- 
pation in 1829, and the movement for the revision of the constitu- 
tion which produced the Reform Bill of 1832, all profoundly stirred 
English society. The Congregationalists, in common with other 
Dissenters, were now no longer subject to galling political disabili- 
ties, their position was materially improved and they might well 
look for rapid growth; but these changes had aroused the con- 
servative spirit of the Church of England also, and Congregation- 
alists might expect increased opposition. 

It was under these circumstances that a two-fold movement 
was begun looking toward the strengthening of denominational 
fellowship. ‘The first of these efforts resulted, largely through the 
instrumentality of Rev. John Blackburn of Pentonville, and of Mr. 
Joshua Wilson of London, in securing the lease of a building in 
Blomfield Street, Finsbury Circus, London, as denominational head- 
quarters from 1830 onward.’ The second effort brought about the 
Union. That Union was advocated by Mr. Blackburn through the 
Congregational Magazine,’ and was also independently urged by the 
Dorset Association through correspondence with other County 
Associations, begun in 1829.°. As a result of this agitation, a Pro- 
visional Committee of twelve laymen and twelve ministers inter- 
ested in the plan met at London June 7, 1830;° and by direction 
of this Committee a letter was sent out on January 24, 1831,° to 





1 The Union was suggested by a deacon of the church at Musselburg, William Tait, in Sept., 
1812; the idea was taken up by the Association at Dalkeith, and a general meeting to favor the 
project held at Edinburgh, Nov. 4, 1812, in Thistle St. Chapel. See Waddington, Cong. Hist.,1V: 
233) 234. 

2 Waddington, /ézd., IV: 351-353; Stoughton, Religion zn Eng., 1800-1850, 11: 102-104. 

3 Waddington, /é7d., 1V: 348-362. 4 bzd. 5 [bid., 350. 

6 Proceedings and letter in Doc. Connected with the Formation ... of the Cong. Union, 
Reprint, pp. 5-7. 


FORMATION OF THE UNION 545 


all County Associations asking them to send delegates to a general 
meeting at London in the following May. 

In accordance with this invitation such an assembly came 
together on May 1o and 13, with an attendance of 82 ministers 
and 19 laymen. Here it was found that of the various Associa- 
tions of England which had responded twenty favored the Union, 
while two hesitated.’ Under these encouraging circumstances the 
meeting proceeded to form a constitution for the proposed body, 
expressing its advisory and non-judicial character; and to appoint 
a committee to complete the organization. By this committee the 
matter was once more presented to the churches,—this time in 
definite form,— and, in accordance with a vote of the convention of 
1831, a new meeting was held at London on May 8 and 11, 
1832. It now appeared that twenty-six Associations of the thirty- 
four in England had approved the plan, while eight hesitated or 
failed to take action.? The meeting therefore, May 8, 1832, voted 
that “the Union be now formed”;* and it has continued in in- 
creasing usefulness to this day. | 

It was at the same session at which this Union was organized 
that*— 


‘“the Rev. J. A. James® then introduced a paper, containing a Declaration of the 
principles of faith and order of the Congregational Body, drawn up by an individual 
at the request of several brethren in town and country.” 


The “individual” here referred to was Mr. James’s neighbor, 
Rey. George Redford of Worcester,* to whose pen the Declaration 
was due. The meeting listened to it with attention; but, believ- 
ing any discussion of it to be premature before it had been laid 
before the churches, it voted unanimously, on May 11, to ask the 
approval of the Associations both as to the expediency and the 


1 Jbtd., p. 9. 2 Minutes of 1&2, Reprint, p. 15. 8 Jbzd., p. 18. 4 [bid., p. 20. 

5 Of Birmingham: 

6 Rev. George Redford was born in London Sept. 27, 1785. He studied at Hoxton and Glas- 
gow, was settled at Uxbridge for 14 years, and became prominent in denominational circles as oné 
of the editors of the Cog. Magazine. From 1826 onward, till ill-health compelled his retirement, 
he was settled at Worcester. He died May 20, 1860. He received the degree of LL.D. from Glas- 
gow, and that of D.D. from Amherst (Mass.). See Cong. Year-Book, 1561, London, 1861, pp. 230- 
233. Regarding the authorship of the Declaration that sketch says that a few emendations were 
made by Mr. Jaines, “‘ but substantially, and almost verbally, it was Dr. Redford’s own composi- 


tion.”’ 


546 THE ENGLISH DECLARATION OF 1833 


form of the proposed Declaration.’ In accordance with this vote - 
it was transmitted to the churches, accompanied by a letter signed 
by the secretary of the Union, Joseph Turnbull, under date of 
June 4, 1832,—a letter which so well sets forth the purpose of the 
Declaration that a quotation is interesting.’ 

‘* Tt was felt that such a document was but little required for our own informa- 

tion, and must necessarily be an imperfect statement of the sentiments held by us. 

Still it was concluded that, for the information of others, not of our de- 
nomination, it was essentially requisite, at the present time. . . . It was stated 
by several brethren, that they were persuaded a very large proportion of our country- 
men take us to be either SOCINIANS or METHODISTS. . . . Had not the 
Declaration of our fathers, at a meeting in the Savoy in the year 1658,? become 
scarce, and almost obsolete, it might have been referred to . . ._ but, consider- 
ing that Declaration, though most orthodox, as too wordy and too much extended for 
our purpose, we were glad to receive the summary before us, as much more compend- 
ious, and more appropriate to the present need.” 

Evidently the churches thought well of the document thus 
submitted to them, at least for the use specified in this letter, for 
their representatives, in the meeting of the Union on May 7, 1833, 
expressed their satisfaction at the reception with which it had met 
and voted that it be referred to a committee* for some slight 
verbal revision,® and then ° 
‘accepted as the Declaration of the Congregational Body, with the distinct under- 
standing, that it is not intended as a test or creed for subscription.” 

On the further report of the revision committee, May to, 1833, 
the Declaration was unanimously approved.’ It was at once issued 
as a tract, and the Union was informed in 1834 that nearly 20,000 
copies had already been circulated.° 

The Declaration is a sweet-spirited statement of which the 
English churches have no cause to be ashamed. In doctrine it is 
Calvinistic and distinctly Evangelical. Its departures from the 
earlier creeds of Puritanism are not essential. In regard to church 
polity it asserts a jure divino Congregationalism with much posi- 
tiveness. Dr. Stoughton, writing in 1884, affirmed it as his opinion 





1 Minutes of 1832, Reprint, pp. 20, 21. 2 Jbzd., pp. 29, 30. 

3 Ante, pp. 367-408. 4 Minutes of 1833, p. 22. 

5 The text of the original draft may be found in Minutes of 182, pp. 23-28. It differs 
very slightly from the form finally adopted. 

6 Minutes of 182}, p. 22. 7 [bid., p. 28. & Minutes of 1834, P. 4. 


ADOPTION OF THE DECLARATION 547 


that “no member of the denomination who has reached an ad- 
vanced age can deny that these articles set forth the current belief 
of fifty years ago.”’ He also stated that “the declaration 
created little discussion.”* But when asked, about 1876, by Prof. 
Schaff, to express the present attitude of Congregationalists in 
England toward the Declaration, Dr. Stoughton inclined to the 
opinion that, partly on grounds of doctrine, but even more because 
such statements are now deemed unwise interferences with Chris- 
tian liberty, the Declaration if newly presented would not now be 
adopted by the Union.* No man was better able to form a judg- 
ment on this point than Dr. Stoughton. ‘But whether he was right 
or wrong, the Declaration is still given an honored place in each 
issue of the Year-Gook of the Congregational Union of England 
and Wales. 


1 Religion in Eng., 1500-1850, 11: 109. 2 Jbid., 110. 
3 Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 1: 833-835. 


548 THE ENGLISH DECLARATION OF 1833 


THE ENGLISH DECLARATION. 


“ The’ CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES in England and Wales, fre- 
quently called Independents, hold the following Doctrines, as of 
Divine authority, and as the foundation of christian faith and 
practice. 

They are also formed and governed according to the princi- 
ples hereinafter stated. 


PRELIMINARY NOTES. 


1. It is not designed, in the following summary, to do more than to state the 
leading doctrines of faith and order maintained by Congregational Churches in 
general. 

2. It is not proposed to offer any proofs, reasons, or argu-[24]ments, in sup- 
port of the doctrines herein stated, but simply to declare what the denomination 
believes to be taught by the pen of inspiration. 

3. It is not intended to present a scholastic or critical confession of faith, but 
merely such a statement as any intelligent member of the body might offer, as con- 
taining its leading principles. 

4. It is not intended that the following statement should be put forth with any 
authority, or as a standard to which assent should be required. 

5. Disallowing the utility of Creeds and Articles of religion as a bond of union, 
and protesting against subscription to any human formularies, as a term of com- 
munion, Congregationalists are yet willing to declare, for general information, what 
is commonly believed among them ; reserving to every one the most perfect liberty 
of conscience. 

6. Upon some minor points of doctrine and practice, they, differing among 
themselves, allow to each other the right to form an unbiassed judgment of the word 
of God. 

7. They wish it to be observed, that, notwithstanding their jealousy of sub- 
scription to Creeds and Articles, and their disapproval of the imposition of any 
human standard, whether of faith or discipline, they are far more agreed in their 
doctrines and practices than any church which enjoins subscription, and enforces a 
human standard of orthodoxy; and they believe that there is no minister and no 
church among them that would deny the substance of any one of the following doc- 
trines of religion ; though each might prefer to state his sentiments in his own way. 


PRINCIPLES OF RELIGION. 


I. The Scriptures of the Old Testament, as received by the 
Jews, and the books of the New Testament, as received by the 





1 From the Reprint of Minutes of 1833, pp. 23-28. 


TEXT OF THE DECLARATION 549 


Primitive Christians from the Evangelists and Apostles, Congrega- 
tional Churches believe to be divinely inspired, and of supreme 
authority. These writings, in the languages in which they were 
originally composed, are to be consulted, by the aids of sound 
criticism, as a final appeal in all controversies ; but the common 
version they consider to be adequate to the ordinary purposes of 
Christian instruction and edification. 

II. They believe in one God, essentially wise, holy, just, and 
good ; eternal, infinite, and immutable, in all natural and moral 
perfections ; the Creator, Supporter, and Governor of all beings, 
and of all things. 

III. They believe that God is revealed in the Scriptures, as 
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that to each are 
[25] attributed the same divine properties and perfections. The 
doctrine of the Divine existence, as above stated, they cordially 
believe without attempting fully to explain. 

IV. They believe that man was created after the divine 
image, sinless, and in his kind perfect. 

V. They believe that the first man disobeyed the divine 
command, fell from his state of innocence and purity, and involved 
all his posterity in the consequences of that fall. 

@ VI. They believe that therefore all mankind are born in sin, 
and that a fatal inclination to moral evil, utterly incurable by 
human means, is inherent in every descendant of Adam. 

VII. They believe that God having, before the foundation of 
the world, designed to redeem fallen man, made disclosures of his 
mercy, which were the grounds of faith and hope from the earliest 
ages, . 
VIII. They believe that God revealed more fully to Abra- 
ham the covenant of his grace ; and, having promised that from 
his descendants should arise the Deliverer and Redeemer of man- 
kind, set that Patriarch and his posterity apart, as a race specially 
favored and separated to his service; a peculiar church, formed 
and carefully preserved, under the divine sanction and government, 
until the birth of the promised Messiah. 

IX. They believe that, in the fulness of the time, the Son of 
God was manifested in the flesh, being born of the Virgin Mary, 
but conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit ; and that our Lord 
Jesus Christ was both the Son of man and the Son of God, partak- 
ing fully and truly of human nature, though without sin, equal 
with the Father, and “the express image of his person.”’ 

X. They believe that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, revealed, 


550 THE ENGLISH DECLARATION OF 1833 


either personally in his own ministry, or by the Holy Spirit in the 
ministry of his apostles, the whole mind of God for our salvation ; 
and that by his obedience to the divine law while he lived, and by 
his sufferings unto death, he meritoriously “obtained eternal 
redemption for us;” having thereby vindicated and illustrated 
divine justice, “ magnified the law,’”’ and “brought in everlasting 
righteousness.” , 

XI. They believe that, after his death and resurrection, he 
ascended up into heaven, where, as the Mediator, he “ ever liveth” 
to rule over all, and to “make intercession for them that come 
unto God by him.” 

XII. They believe that the Holy Spirit is given in conse- 
quence of Christ’s mediation, to quicken and renew the hearts of 
men; and that his influence is indispensably necessary to bring a 
sinner to true repentance, to produce saving faith, to regenerate 
the heart, and to perfect our sanctification. 

XIII. They believe that we are justified through faith in 
Christ ; as “the Lord our righteousness,” and not “by the works 
of the Law.” 

[26] XIV. They believe that all who will be saved were the 
objects of God’s eternal and electing love, and were given by an 
act of divine sovereignty to the Son of God; which in no way 
interferes with the system of means, nor with the grounds of 
human responsibility, being wholly unrevealed as to its objects, 
and therefore incapable of becoming a rule of human duty. 

XV. They believe that the Scriptures teach the final per- 
severance of all true believers to a state of eternal blessedness; 
which they are appointed to obtain through constant faith in 
Christ, and uniform obedience to his commands. 

XVI. They believe that a holy life will be the necessary 
effect of a true faith, and that good works are the certain fruits of 
a vital union to Christ. 

XVII. They believe that the sanctification of true Christians, 
or their growth in the graces of the Spirit, and meetness for heaven, 
is gradually carried on through the whole period, during which it 
pleases God to continue them in the present life; and that, at death, 
their souls, perfectly freed from all remains of evil, are immediately 
received into the presence of Christ. 

XVIII. They believe in the perpetual obligation of Baptism, 
and the Lord’s Supper: the former to be administered to all con- 
verts to Christianity and their children, by the application of 
water to the subject, “in the name of the Father and of the Son 


TEXT OF THE DECLARATION 559” 


and of the Holy Ghost;” and the latter to be celebrated by 
Christian churches as a token of faith in the Saviour, and of 
brotherly love. 

XIX. They believe that Christ will finally come to judge the 
whole human race according to their works; that the bodies of the 
dead will be raised again; and that as the Supreme Judge, he will 
divide the righteous from the wicked, will receive the righteous 
into “life everlasting,” but send away the wicked into “ everlasting 
punishment.” 

XX. They believe that Jesus Christ directed his followers to 
live together in christian fellowship, and to maintain the com- 
munion of saints; and that, for this purpose, they are jointly to 
observe all divine ordinances, and maintain that church-order and 
discipline which is either expressly enjoined by inspired institution, 
or sanctioned by the undoubted example of the apostles and of 
apostolic churches. 


PRINCIPLES OF CHURCH-ORDER AND DISCIPLINE. 


I. The Congregational Churches hold it to be the will of Christ that true 
believers should voluntarily assemble together to observe religious ordinances, to 
promote mutual edification and holiness, to perpetuate and propagate the gospel in 
the world, [27| and to advance the glory and worship of God, through Jesus Christ ; 
and that each Society of believers, having these objects in view in its formation, is 
properly a christian church. 

Il. They believe that the New Testament contains, either in the form of ex- 
press statute, or in the example and practice of apostles and apostolic churches, all 
the articles of faith necessary to be believed, and all the principles of order and disci- 
pline requisite for constituting and governing christian societies; and that human 
traditions, fathers and councils, canons and creeds, possess no authority over the 
faith and practice of Christians. 

III. They acknowledge Christ as the only Head of the church, and the officers 
of each church, under him, as ordained to administer his laws impartially to all; and 
their only appeal, in all questions touching their religious faith and practice, is to the 
Sacred Scriptures. 

IV. They believe that the New Testament authorizes every christian church to 
elect its own officers, to manage all its own affairs, and to stand independent of, and 
irresponsible to, all authority, saving that only of the supreme and divine Head of the 
church, the Lord Jesus Christ. 

V. They believe that the only officers placed by the apostles over individual 
churches, are the bishops or pastors, and the deacons; the number of these being 
dependent upon the numbers of the church ; and that to these, as the officers of the 
church, is committed respectively the administration of its spiritual and temporal con- 
cerns ;— subject, however, to the approbation of the church. 

VI. They believe that no persons should be received as members of christian 
churches, but such as make a credible profession of Christianity, are living accord- 
ing to its precepts, and attest a willingness to be subject to its discipline ; and that 


552 THE ENGLISH DECLARATION OF 1833 


none should be excluded from the fellowship of the church, but such as deny the 
faith of Christ, violate his laws, or refuse to submit themselves to the discipline which 
the word of God enforces. 

VII. The power of admission into any christian Church, and rejection from it, 
they believe to be vested in the church itself, and to be exercised only through the 
medium of its own officers. 

VIII. They believe that christian churches should statedly meet for the cele- 
bration of public worship, for the observance of the Lord’s Supper, and for the 
sanctification of the first day of the week. 

IX. They believe that the power of a christian church is purely spiritual, and 
should in no way be corrupted by union with temporal or civil power. 

X. They believe that it is the duty of christian churches to hold communion 
with each other, to entertain an enlarged affection for each other, as members of the 
same body, and to co-ope- [28] rate for the promotion of the christian cause ; but that 
no church, nor union of churches, has any right or power to interfere with the faith 
or discipline of any other church, further than to separate from such as, in faith or 
practice, depart from the gospel of Christ. 

XI. They believe that it is the privilege and duty of every church to call Pet 
such of its members as may appear to be qualified, by the Holy Spirit, to sustain the 
office of the ministry: and that christian churches unitedly ought to consider the 
maintenance of the christian ministry, in an adequate degree of learning, as one of 
its especial cares; that the cause of the gospel may be both honourably sustained, 
and constantly promoted. 

XII. They believe that church officers, whether bishops or deacons, should be 
chosen by the free voice of the church, but that their dedication to the duties of their 
office should take place with special prayer, and by solemn designation, to which 
most of the churches add the imposition of hands by those already in office. 

XIII. They believe that the fellowship of every christian church should be so 
liberal as to admit to communion in the Lord’s Supper, all whose faith and godliness 
are, on the whole, undoubted, though conscienciously differing in points of minor 
importance ; and that this outward sign of fraternity in Christ should be co-extensive 
with the fraternity itself, though without involving any compliances which conscience 
would deem to be sinful.” 


XVIII 


THE “BURIAL HILL” DECLARATION OF FAITH; 
AND THE STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES OF 
POLITY, 1865 


EDITIONS! AND REPRINTS 
A. THE DECLARATION 


I. Debates and Proceedings of the National Council of Congregational 
Churches, Held at Boston, Mass., June r4-24, 1865, Boston, 1866, pp. 401-403. 
[Not wholly accurate. | 

Il. Congregational Quarterly, X: 377, 378 [accurate]. 

Ill. LZeclesiastical Polity. The Government and Communion Practised by the 
Congregational Churches in the United States, Boston, 1872 [1879], pp. 77-80. 

IV. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, New York, 1877, II: 734-736. 

V. Congregationalist, June 1, 1893. 


B. THE PRINCIPLES 


I. Debates and Proceedings, etc., pp. 463, 464. 
II. Dexter, Congregationalism . . . as seen in its Literature, p. 517. 


LITERATURE 
The Debates and Proceedings, above cited, give the reports and discussions 
leading to the Declaration and Statement in full. 
HE Albany Convention of 1852 clearly manifested the real 
‘fe unity of Congregationalism, east and west, and the aban- 
donment of the Plan of Union gave impetus to the growing 
consciousness of the denomination. As a consequence, a stronger 
desire began to be felt for some outward manifestation of Congre- 
gational brotherhood. ‘This dawning sense of the continental mis- 
sion of Congregationalism was strengthened by the war of the 
rebellion,—a crisis in which national spirit in all its forms was 
aroused and in which the Congregational churches, unlike the 
Presbyterians, found themselves substantially united in support of 
the triumphant cause. Accordingly, when the failure of the rebel- 
lion became probable, and it was evident to far-sighted observers 
that the South and Southwest would be unbarred to Congregation- 
alism as never before, and that a new epoch in national history 


1 Owing to the accessible character of the literature, I have given only the most important. 
The religious, and to some extent the secular, newspapers of the period contain references. 


36 (553) 


554 ‘THE SYMBOLS OF 1865 


had opened,’ movements began having for their aim the gathering 
of a representative Convention wherein the churches might delib- 
erate as to the best methods of improving the opportunities of the 


hour. 
The motion looking toward the Council began with the “ Con- 


vention of the Congregational Churches of the Northwest.” This 
organization, representative of the churches of Michigan, Illinois, 
Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, and Minnesota, and having for 
its main purpose the choice of trustees of Chicago Theological 
Seminary, was induced by Rev. Dr. T. M. Post of St. Louis, to 
vote, at its meeting at Chicago, April 27, 1864, in view of the re- 
sults of the war:’ 

‘“That the crisis demands general consultation, codperation, and concert among 


our churches, and to these ends, requires extensive correspondence among our eccle- 
siastical associations, or the assembling of a National Congregational Convention.” 


This proposal was presented to the Illinois General Associa- 
tion at its meeting at Quincy, May 27, 1864, and was received with 
hearty approval. The Association voted to overture the other 
Congregational state bodies to unite in promoting a “ National 
Convention,” and recommended that the body meet at Springfield, 
Mass., or Albany, N. Y., on Sept. 6, 1864; and that its membership 
be, like that of the Albany Convention of 1852, the pastor and a 
delegate from every Congregational church that should choose to 
send. ‘The proposition thus addressed to the Congregationalists 
of the country was favorably received, and during the summer and 
autumn of 1864* the plan of a National Convention was ratified by 
the state organizations of Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, Ohio, Rhode 
Island, Maine, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, 
and Minnesota, in the order named. New Hampshire disapproved, 
though at least one prominent local association of that state 
favored the proposal. Each of the approving state conventions 
empowered a committee to join in perfecting arrangements for the 
National Convention, and on Noy. 16, 1864, at the invitation of 
the trustees of the American Congregational Union,’ the various 

1 See Debates and Proceedings of the National Council . . . 1865, p. i. 


2 The full vote is given /4zd., pp. 1, 2. See also Winutes of Convention, etc., p. 16. 
3 Jézd., p. 2. 4 Tb7d., Ded 5 [bid. 


GATHERING: OF THE COUNCIL 555 


committees met in the Broadway Tabernacle Church, New York, 
and organized a preliminary conference. 

By this conference the proposed assembly was styled a “ Na- 
tional Council,’’ and its membership was determined to be repre- 
sentatives, both clerical and lay, chosen by the churches gathered 
in their local conferences or associations, in the proportion of two 
for each ten churches, or major fraction thereof, joined in such 
local body. Boston was proposed as the place of meeting, and the 
date of assembly fixed for the second Wednesday in June, 1865.’ 
A variety of topics for discussion by the National Council were 
also determined upon by the preliminary conference, of which 
those of most concern here are the fifth and sixth,® “the expedi- 
ency of issuing a statement of Congregational church polity,” and 
“the expediency of setting forth a declaration of the Christian 
faith, as held in common by the Congregational churches.” The 
conference appointed a committee to report to the Council on 
each of these topics; that charged with the question of polity 
being composed of Rev. Dr. Leonard Bacon,* Rev. A. H. Quint,° 
and Rev. Dr. H. M. Storrs;® and that having to do with the decla- 
ration of faith embracing Rev. Dr. J. P. Thompson,’ Rev. Prof. G. 
P. Fisher,® and Rev. Prof. E. A. Lawrence.’ The preliminary con- 
ference then issued a call’® to the churches to elect representatives 
to the proposed Council, and adjourned, having done all that could 
be expected in preparing the way for the great denominational 
assembly.” 

Pursuant to this summons, the National Council gathered in 
the Old South Meeting-house, Boston, on June 14, 1865, with a 
membership” of five hundred and two delegates, sixteen represent- 
atives of Congregational bodies in foreign lands, and fourteen 
persons whose connection with the Council was honorary. The 


1 Jbzd., p. 8. 2 Tbid., June 14. 3 Jbtd., p. 7. 4 Of New Haven, Conn. 

5 Then of New Bedford, Mass. 6 Then of Cincinnati, O. 

7 New York city. 8 Yale Divinity School. 

® Theological Institute of Conn., then at East Windsor Hill, Conn., now Hartford Theologi- 
cal Seminary. 10 In full, 7ézd., pp. 12-16. 

11 The call was signed by representatives of State bodies in every case except that of New 
Hampshire, a committee of the Hopkinton Association signed as representing part of the N. H. 
Churches. 12 The names are given in full, /47d., pp. 19-25. 


556 THE SYMBOLS OF 1865 


permanent moderator of the body was Gov. William A. Bucking- 
ham of Connecticut, assisted by Rev. Dr. J. P. Thompson and 
Hon. C. G. Hammond;* and its scribes were Rev. H. M> Dexter 
Dea. Samuel Holmes,? and Rev. Messrs. Philo R. Hurd,* M. K. 
Whittlesey,® and E. P. Marvin.® So far its officers were similar to 
those of the Synods of the seventeenth century, but a power in 
directing the discussions appeared in the National Council un- 
known to the earlier bodies, in name at least, though its equivalent 
was doubtless to be found in them also,— the ‘ Business Com- 
mittee.” This influential committee, chosen by the Council, con- 
sisted of Rev. A. H. Quint, Rev. Drs. Samuel Wolcott,’ and Benja- 
min Labaree,*® and Deacons Philo Carpenter’ and S, F. Drury.” 
This committee was charged with preparing “a docket for the use 
of the moderator,” and save “by special vote of the Council, no 
business”? was to be “introduced which has not . . . passed 


99711 


through the hands of the committee. Its guidance was felt 


throughout the session. 

It was on the third day of the session, June 16, that the com- 
mittee on the Declaration of Faith made, through its chairman, a 
report, of which these are the essential portions:” 


‘“'The committee appointed by the preliminary conference to prepare a Declara- 
tion of Faith, to be submitted to the Council, respectfully report : — 

That, in the light of the discussions of that conference upon the expediency of 
such a Declaration, and also of the general principles of our polity, they could not 
regard it as their function to prepare a Confession of Faith to be imposed by act of 
this, or of any other body, upon the churches of the Congregational order. ‘It was 
the glory of our fathers, that they heartily professed the only rule of their religion, 
from the very first, to be the Holy Scriptures ;’!* and particular churches have 
always exercised their liberty in * confessions drawn up in theirown forms’!* , 
Whatever the diversities of metaphysical theology apparent in these various confes- 
sions, they yet, with singular unanimity, identify the faith of the Congregational 
churches with the body of Christian doctrine known as Calvinistic ; and hence such 
Confessions as that of the Westminster divines, and that of the Savoy Synod, have 
been accredited among these churches as general symbols of faith. 





1 Chicago. 2 Then of Boston. 3 New York city. 
4 Romeo, Mich. 5 Ottawa, Ill. 6 Medford, Mass, 
7 Cleveland, O. 8 Middlebury, Vt. 9 Chicago. 10 Olivet, Mich. 


11 “* Rules of Order”’ of the Council, Debates and Proceedings, p. 57. 

12 In full, 74zd., pp. 95-98. It would appear to have been prepared largely by Prof. Lawrence, 
Lbid., p. 347. 

13 Preface of Saybrook Platform, azfze, p. 518. 

14 Magnalia, ed. 1853-5, 11: 181. 


REPORT ON PROPOSED DECLARATION 557 


It has not appeared to the committee expedient to recommend that this Council 
should disturb this ‘ variety in unity’—as Cotton Mather happily describes it— by an 
attempted uniformity of statement in a Confession formulating each doctrine in more 
recent terms of metaphysical theology. It seemed better to characterize, in a com- 
prehensive way, the doctrines held in common by our churches, than thus to individ- 
ualize each in a theological formuia. , 

With these views, as the result of prolonged and careful deliberation, the com- 
mittee unanimously recommend that the Council should declare, by reference to 
historical and venerable symbols, the faith as it has been maintained among the Con- 
. gregational churches from the beginning ; and also that it should set forth a testimony 
on behalf of these churches, for the Word of Truth now assailed by multiform and 
dangerous errors ; and, for this end, they respectfully submit the following 


RECITAL AND DECLARATION. 


When the churches of New England assembled in a general synod at Cambridge, 
in 1648, they declared their assent, ‘‘ for the substance thereof,” to the Westminster 
Confession of Faith. When, again, these churches convened in a general synod! at 
Boston, in 1680, they declared their approval (with slight verbal alterations) of the 
doctrinal symbol adopted by a synod of the Congregational churches in England, at 
London, in 1658, and known as the ‘‘ Savoy Confession,” which in doctrine is almost 
identical with that of the Westminster Assembly. And yet again, when the churches 
in Connecticut met in council at Saybrook, in 1708, they ‘owned and consented to’ 
the Savoy Confession as adopted at Boston, and offered this as a public symbol of 
their faith. 

Thus, from the beginning of their history, the Congregational churches in the 
United States have been allied in doctrine with the Reformed churches of Europe, 
and especially of Great Britain. The eighth article of the ‘‘ Heads of Agreement,” 
established by the Congregational and Presbyterian ministers in England in 1692, 
and adopted at Saybrook in 1708, defines this position in these words: * ‘ As to what 
appertains to soundness of judgment in matters of faith, we esteem it sufficient that a 
church acknowledge the Scriptures to be the Word of God, the perfect and only rule 
of faith and practice, and own either the doctrinal parts of those commonly called the 
Articles of the Church of England, or the Confession or Catechisms, shorter or larger, 
compiled by the Assembly at Westminster, or the Confession agreed on at the Savoy, 
to be agreeable to the said rule.’ 

And now, when after the lapse of two centuries, these churches are again con- 
vened in a General Council at their primitive and historical home, it is enough for 
the first of those ends enumerated by the synod at Cambridge,— to wit, ‘ the main- 
tenance of the faith entire, within itself,—that this Council, referring to those 
ancient symbols as embodying, for substance of doctrine, the constant faith of the 
churches here represented, declares its adherence to the same, as being ‘ well and 
fully grounded upon the Holy Scriptures,’* which is ‘the only sufficient and invaria- 
ble rule of religion.’ ° 

But having in view, also, the second end of a public confession enumerated by 
the Cambridge Synod,—to wit, ‘the holding forth of unity and harmony both 
amongst and with other churches,’ ’—we desire to promote a closer fellowship of all 


1 The reader need hardly be reminded that the Synod of 1680 was not general, but a local 
Massachusetts body. 

2 Should be r6or. 3 See ante, pp. 461, 462. 

4 Saybrook Preface, azze, p. 519. 5 Thid. 6 Ante, p. 194. 


558 THE SYMBOLS OF 1865 


Christian denominations in the faith and work of the gospel, especially against popu- 
lar and destructive forms of unbelief, which assail the foundations of all religion, 
both natural and revealed ; which know no God but nature ; no Depravity but physi- 
cal malformation, immaturity of powers, or some incident of outward condition ; no 
Providence but the working of material causes and of statistical laws ; no Revelation 
but that of consciousness; no Redemption but the elimination of evil by a natural 
sequence of suffering ; no Regeneration but the natural evolution of a higher type of 
existence ; no Retribution but the necessary consequences of physical and psychologi- 
cal laws. 

As a testimony, in common with all Christian believers, against these and kindred 
errors, we deem it important to make a more specific declaration of the following 
bruths ¢-— 

There is one personal God, who created all things; who controls the physical 
universe, the laws whereof he has established; and who, holding all events within 
his knowledge, rules over men by his wise and good providence and by his perfect 
moral law. 

God, whose being, perfections, and government are partially made known to us 
through the testimony of his works and of conscience, has made a further revelation 
of himself in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments,—a revelation attested 
at the first by supernatural signs, and confirmed through all ages since by its moral 
effects upon the individual soul, and upon human society ; a revelation authoritative 
and final. In this revelation, God has declared himself to be the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost ; and he has manifested his love for the world through the incar- 
nation of the Eternal Word for man’s redemption, in the sinless life, the expiatory 
sufferings and death, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour, and 
also in the mission of the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, for the regeneration and sancti- 
fication of the souls of men. 

The Scriptures, confirming the testimony of conscience and of history, declare 
that mankind are universally sinners, and are under the righteous condemnation of 
the law of God; that from this state there is no deliverance, save through ‘ repent- 
ance toward God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ;’ and that there is a day 
appointed in which God will raise the dead, and will judge the world, and in which 
the issues of his moral government over men shall be made manifest in the awards of 
eternal life and eternal death, according to the deeds done in the body. 

JosepH P. THOMPSON, 
EDWARD A. LAWRENCE, 
GEORGE P, FISHER.” 


This report, after a little discussion as to whether the issuance 
of a Declaration of Faith was contemplated by the bodies whose 
overtures originated the call of the Council, was referred to a 
special committee, consisting of Rev. John O. Fiske,’ Prof. D. J. 
Noyes,’ Rev. Drs. Nahum Gale,*® Joseph Eldridge,* and Leonard 
Swain,’ Dr. A. G. Bristol,* Rev. J. C. Hart,’ Dea. S.S. Barmara. 
and Rev. G. 5S. F. Savage,® “ with instructions to consider the pro- 


1 Bath, Me. 2 Dartmouth Coll. 3 Lee, Mass. 4 Norfolk, Conn, 
5 Providence, R. I. ® Rochester, N. Y. 7 Kent, O: 8 Detroit, Mich. 
9 Chicago. 


THE MATTER DISCUSSED 559 


priety of submitting to the Council a declaration of the common 
faith of our churches, and if thought advisable, to report such 
declaration.”’ To the committee thus charged, Profs. Samuel 
Harris,” E. A. Park,* E. A. Lawrence,* Noah Porter,’ J. H. Fair- 
child,* and Joseph Haven," were a little later added, doubtless 
with a desire thus to have the wisdom of as large a number of 
technically trained theologians as possible. 

This new committee, on June 21, made a somewhat longer 
report than that of its predecessor,* employing in part the same 
language, but making considerably more elaborate statements in 
regard to several doctrines, especially that of the church, and in- 
troducing the following affirmation as its third paragraph : ® 

‘*In conformity therefore, with the usage of previous councils, we, the elders and 
messengers of the Congregational churches in the United States, do now profess our 
adherence to the above-named Westminster and Savoy Confessions for ‘ substance of 
doctrine.’ We thus declare our acceptance of the system of truths which is com- 
monly known among us as Calvinism, and which is distinguished from other systems 
by so exalting the sovereignty of God as to ‘establish’ rather than take away the 
‘liberty’ or free-agency of man, and by so exhibiting the entire character of God as 
to show most clearly ‘the exceeding sinfulness of sin.’”’ 

On the reading of this report by the chairman of the com- 
mittee, Rev. John O. Fiske, its adoption was moved by Rev. Dr. 
Samuel Wolcott;*® whereupon Rev. Uriah Balkam,” a clerical 
neighbor of the chairman, at once proposed to amend by substi- 
tuting the report of the previous committee. A sharply contested 
debate now ensued,” having to do at first with the relative merits 
of the two reports, but resolving itself speedily into the approval 
or disapproval of the paragraph quoted from the report of the 
second committee declaring the faith of Congregationalists to be 
Calvinism. 

The first to speak was Rev. Dr. Thompson, chairman of the 
first committee, who now urged the adoption of the report of its 
successor. Rev. Dr. Wolcott followed in similar strain. Mr, 


1 Debates and Proceedings, pp. 100, 134. 

2 Bangor Sem. 3 Andover Sem. 4 East Windsor Hiil, now Hartford Sem. § Yale. 
8 Oberlin. 7 Chicago Sem. 8 In full, Debates and Proceedings, PP. 344-347. 

9 Paragraphs 1 and 2 are identical with the corresponding portions of the previous report. 
10 Cleveland, O. 11 Lewiston, Me. 12 In full, 7dzd., pp. 347-357- 


560 THE SYMBOLS OF 1865 


Balkam of course supported his amendment; but Rev. Dr. Bacon? 
and Profs. Porter and Lawrence argued in favor of the second 
report. At this point Mr. Balkam, seeing that the sentiment of 
the council favored the declaration prepared by the second com- 
mittee, withdrew his amendment. But no sooner had he done so 
than the debate was brought to a focus by a new amendment, 
offered by Rev. Dr. Joshua Leavitt,’ proposing “to strike out from 
the third paragraph the words ‘which is commonly known among 
us as Calvinism,’ etc.” The mover declared himself a Calvinist, 
but was confident that the use of any party name was lable to 
' cause much misunderstanding as to the real position of the denom- 
ination. His opposition to the paragraph was supported by Rev. 
Drs.. W. W. Patton,? and 5S. W.°S. Dutton,* while Rev=Drigea 
Sturtevant ® desired the preparation of a modern confession of 
faith, in language of the present, and without reference to previous 
formulas. On the other hand, Prof. Park deprecated the amend- 
ment, and affirmed: ° 

‘“We are Calvinists, mainly, essentially, in all the essentials of our faith: and 
the man who, having pursued a three years’ course of study,—having studied the 
Bible in the original languages,— is not a Calvinist, is not a respectable man. 
I should be utterly and perfectly ashamed to have this amendment pass.” 

The views of Prof. Park were evidently those of a majority of 
the Council, and the amendment was declared rejected without a 
count of votes. Fruitless motions were now made by those opposed 
to the disputed section to lay the report upon the table, to adjourn, 
and to postpone further consideration till the next session; but 
finally the growing lateness of the hour led to an adjournment 
before a vote was reached. It so happened that, in accordance 
with a plan settled upon four days before, the Council agreed to 
meet the next morning not in Boston, but on Burial .Hill in Ply- 
mouth, to which historic spot it was drawn by memories of the Con- 
gregationalists of that Scrooby-Leyden company whose ashes have 
rested there since the fatal winter of their first landing on Ameri- 
can shores. A reunion on so memorable a spot, under circumstances 


1 New Haven, Conn. 2 New York city. 3 Chicago. 
4 New Haven, Conn. 5 Jacksonville, Ill. 6 [bid., Ps 357- 





THE, COUNGIL. ON. BURIAL HILL 501 


so provocative of generous sentiment, seemed to some of the cooler 
leaders of the Council an opportunity to secure the united declara- 
tion of faith which the previous day’s session had failed to bring. 
It was clear that, if pushed to a vote, the report of the second 
committee with its Calvinistic paragraph would command the 
suffrages of a large proportion of the Council; it was plain also 
that its adoption would displease many, who without being exclu- 
sively or even generally Arminian in their sentiments deprecated 
any party shibboleth. And, therefore, a few prominent members, 
of whom Rey. A. H. Quint, chairman of the Business Committee, 
was leader, determined to present to the Council, at its session on 
Burial Hill, a new Declaration, embodying the main points of the 
former reports, but avoiding the objectionable phrases. Such a 
draft was prepared, and so great was the pressure of business 
during the hours between the adjournment and the meeting at 
Plymouth, that the last sentences of the proposed formula were 
written by Mr. Quint, with a hat as his tablet, on the train as it 
rolled Plymouth-ward. Arrived on Burial Hill, the Council assem- 
bled in regular form, on the morning of June 22d; and Mr. Quint, 
in the name of its Business Committee, presented what has since 


At the conclusion 


been known as the “ Burial Hill Declaration.” 
of its reading, Rev. Dr. Bacon moved its adoption, and its refer- 
ence, together with the report of the second committee which had 
caused the debate of the day before, to a new committee for per- 
fection. Rev. George Allen? raised his voice in protest against 
the document as “‘sectarian.””’ Dea. Charles Stoddard? supported 
the views of Dr. Bacon, and Prof. Porter came to the aid of the 
same cause, though deprecating the presentation of a symbol under 
circumstances making debate almost impossible, and conditioning 
his approval on the insertion of a paragraph from the report of the 
second committee asserting the adaptability of Congregationalism 
to promote church unity and discountenancing ecclesiastical sub- 


division in small communities, The addition was promptly accepted 


1 I do not give the form read on Burial Hill here because it differs but slightly from the Dec- 
laration as finally adopted, and which will be found a little later. The full text isin Dedates and 
Proceedings, pp. 361-363. 

2 Worcester, Mass. 3 Boston, Mass. 


562 THE SYMBOLS OF 1865 


by Mr. Quint, who now urged that only the paper presented on 
Burial Hill be approved by the Council, and that the committee of 
revision be empowered to do no more than make merely verbal 
alterations, not affecting the sense. These conditions were 
accepted by Dr. Bacon, and on a vote the declaration was adopted 
with but two dissenting voices. 

The Declaration thus accepted at Plymouth was submitted for 
revision to a committee appointed the next day, after the return 
of the Council to Boston, and composed of Prof. William A. Stearns,’ 
Rev. Dr. W. W. Patton,’ and Rev. Julius A. Reed;* but their action 
had been expressly limited, and their changes were few and unim- 
portant.’ After a few hours’ deliberation the revisers reported the 
completed form to the Council, and the Declaration was adopted 


by a rising vote, without opposition, — June 23, 1865. In its final 
form it is as follows:° 


BURIAL HILL DECLARATION. 


“ Standing by the rock where the Pilgrims set foot upon these 
shores, upon the spot where they worshipped God, and among the graves 
of the early generations, we, Elders and Messengers of the Congrega- 
tional churches of the United States tn National Council assembled,— 
like them acknowledging no rule of faith but the word of God,—do 
now declare’ our adherence to the faith and order of the apostolic and 
primitive churches’ held by our fathers, and substantially as* embodied 
in the confessions and platforms which our Synods of 1648 and 1680 
set forth or reaffirmed. We declare that the experience of the nearly 
two and a half centuries which have elapsed since the memorable day 
when our sires founded here a Christian Commonwealth, with all the 
development of new forms of error since their times, has only deepened 


our confidence tn the faith and polity of these fathers, We bless God? 


for the inheritance of these doctrines.’”° We invoke the help of 





1 Amherst College. 2 Chicago. 3 Davenport, Iowa. 

4In full, Debates and Proceedings, p. 421. They will be indicated in the notes to the 
Declaration. 

5 From Cong. Quart., X: 377. That which is taken from the report of the second commit- 
tee is here printed in Roman, the Burial Hill additions in 7tudzcs. The ‘‘ Calvinistic’’ clause is of 


course omitted. Considerable rearrangement in order was made in the portions taken from the 
report. 


8 Before revision, ‘‘ reiterate.”’ 7 7ézd. inserts ‘‘as.”’ 
8 Jé7d., reads ‘tas substantially.”’ 9 Jé¢d., ‘‘the God of our Fathers,’’ 
10 77d, adds, ‘‘ which have been transmitted to us, their children.” 


_ . ela 


TEXT OF THE DECLARATION 563 


the Divine Redeemer, that, through the presence of the promised 
Comforter, He will enable us to transmit them in purity to our 
children. 

In the times that are before us as a nation, times at once of, 
duty and of danger, we rest all.our hope in the gospel of the Son 
of God. It was the grand peculiarity of our Puritan Fathers, that 
they held this gospel, not merely as the ground of their personal 
salvation, but as declaring the worth of man by the incarnation 
and sacrifice of the Son of God; and therefore applied its princi- 
ples to elevate society, to regulate education, to civilize humanity, 
to purify law, to reform the Church and the State, and’ to assert 
and defend liberty; in short, to mould and redeem, by its all-trans- 
forming energy, everything that belongs to man in his individual 
and social relations. ) 

It was the faith of our fathers that gave us this free land in 
which we dwell. It is by this faith only that we can transmit to 
our children a free and happy, because a Christian, commonwealth. 

We’ hold it to be a distinctive excellence of our Congrega- 
tional system, that it exalts that which is more, above that which 
is less, important, and by the simplicity of its organization, facili- 
tates, in communities where the population is limited, the union of 
all true believers in one Christian church; and that the division of 
such communities into several weak and jealous societies, holding 
the same common faith, is a sin against the unity of the body of 
Christ, and at once the shame and the scandal of Christendom. 

We rejoice that, through the influence of our free system of 
apostolic order, we can hold fellowship with all who acknowledge 
Christ; and act efficiently in the work of restoring unity to the 
divided Church, and of bringing back harmony and peace among 
all ‘who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.’ 

Thus* recognizing the unity of the Church of Christ in all the 
world, and knowing that we are but one branch of Christ’s people, 
while adhering to our own peculiar faith and order, we extend to all 
believers the hand of Christian fellowship, upon the basts of those great 
fundamental truths in which all Christians should* agree. Wath them 
we confess our faith in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost, the only living and true God; in Jesus Christ, the incarnate 
Word, who is exalted to be our Redeemer and King; and in the 
Holy Comforter, who is present in the Church to regenerate and 
sanctify the soul. 





1 Jézd. omits ‘‘and.”’ 
2 This is the paragraph inserted on Burial Hill at the request of Prof. Porter. 
3 Before revision, ‘‘ But.”’ Sead mayan 


564 THE SYMBOLS OF 1865 


With the whole Church, we confess the common sinfulness 
and ruin of our race, and acknowledge that it is only through the 
work accomplished by the life and expiatory death of Christ that 
believers in him’ are justified before God,’ receive the remission of 
sins, and through the presence and grace of the Holy Comforter ’® 
are delivered from the power of sin, and * perfected in holiness. 

We believe also in the® organized and visible Church, in the 
ministry of the Word, in the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s 
Supper, in the resurrection of the body, and in the final judgment, 
the issues of which are eternal life and everlasting punishment. 

We receive these truths on the testimony of God, given’ 
through prophets and apostles, and in the life, the miracles, 
the death, the resurrection, of his Son, our Divine Redeemer,—a 
testimony preserved for the Church in the Scriptures of the Old 
and New Testaments, which were composed by holy men as they 
were moved by the Holy Ghost. 

Affirming now our belief that those who thus hold ‘one faith, 
one Lord, one baptism,’ together constitute the one Catholic 
Church, the several households of which, though called by differ- 
ent names, are the one body of Christ; and that these members of 
his body are sacredly bound to keep ‘the unity of the spirit in the 
bond of peace,’ we declare that we will cooperate with all who hold 
these truths. With them we will carry the gospel into every part of 
this land, and with them we will go into all the world, and ‘preach the 
gospel to every creature. May He to whom ‘all power is given in 
heaven and earth’ fulfil the promise which is all our hope: ‘Lo, lam 
with you alway, even to the end of the world.’ AMEN.” 


Thus came into being the only Declaration of Faith which a 
body representative of American Congregationalism as a whole 
had approved since 1648,—a distinction which it still retains.’ 
As compared with the Puritan symbols of two centuries before, it 
shows great advance in simplicity and catholicity. If it has little 
of their strength and definiteness, it has little of their narrowness 
and omniscience. It distinctly recognizes the Congregational 





1 Jézd., ‘‘ that we are.”’ 

2 Jézd, adds. *-and,”” 3 Jé¢d. reads, ‘‘ Comforter alone that we hope to be delivered.” 

4 Jb¢d. adds, ‘‘ to be.”’ Orda vat 

6 Jé¢d. adds, ‘‘ originally.” 

7 The ‘* Oberlin Declaration,’’ which forms the subject of the next chapter, is hardly suffi 
ciently creed-like to rob this Declaration of this distinction. 


CHARACTER OF THE DECLARATION 565 


body as but one of the Christian household. It has the merit of 
reasonable brevity. But it is also marked by the flavor of time 
and place, and by a certain exuberance of expression, natural per- 
haps to the sentiments of the hour, but hardly consonant with the 
judicial precision usually looked for in a statement of intellectual 
conviction. The historic feeling which prompted the recognition 
of the Platform of 1648 and the Confession of 76So as standards of 
Congregationalism was true; but the general phraseology of the 
Declaration leaves the question of the relation to present Congre- 
gational belief of the statements of those symbols regarding par- 
ticular doctrines little clearer than before. The reaffirmation may 
mean much or little. The doctrines that the Declaration specifi- 
cally enumerates form but an outline, and are presented in the 
most general language. Ina statement of broad principles, rather 
than specific beliefs, issued on a historic occasion as a memorial 
rather than as a formula for permanent local use, these charac- 
teristics are not necessarily demerits; but they have operated to 
prevent the adoption of the Burial Hill Declaration as the creed 
of individual churches, and have made it to be comparatively little 
known and little used. 


While these debates regarding the Confession of Faith had 
been in progress, a very similar discussion had taken place in the 
Council with reference to Church Polity. It will be remembered 
that the preliminary conference had appointed Rev. Dr. Bacon, 
ieee ri. ()uint, and Rev. Dr. H, M. Storrs a committee’ to 
report to the Council on “the expediency of issuing a statement of 
Congregational church polity.’ Of that committee, Dr. Storrs 
was unable to fulfil his appointment ; but the chairman prepared, 
with the concurrence of his remaining colleague, an elaborate and 
very extensive platform of church polity,?, modeled in size,’ 
language, and arrangement on the Cambridge Platform, but in- 
tended to present the actual, contemporary usages of the denomi- 
nation. To this was appended a briefer epitome of Congregational 


1 See ante, 555. 2 In full, Debates and Proceedings, pp. 102-133. 


566 THE SYMBOLS OF 1865 


principles, not unadapted for use in church manuals. This report 
was presented to the Council on June 16, and fills twenty-seven 
large pages of rather fine print. As in the case of the report of 
the first committee on the Declaration, the Council immediately 
referred the document to a new special committee, embracing Rev. 
J. P; Gulliver,* Prof. Samuel Harris,’ Rey. Nelson Bishop Prog 
A., Park, Rev. J. G. Davis,‘ Rev. Dro Joshua Leavitt” Proreaace 
Bartlett,’ Rev. Messrs. Jesse Guernsey’ and Charles Cy Salter? 
Judge Lester Taylor,? Rev. Messrs. James. 5. Hoyt andijgem 
Liggett ;** to whom the Council afterwards added Rev. E. F. 
Burr.” This large body deliberated till June 23, and did not 
present its conclusions till after the adoption of the Declaration. 
Then it was found that the opinions were not unanimous, The 
chairman and ten others of the committee joined in a paper’ in 
which they expressed general approval of the report, but held that 
it was impossible for the Council to perfect it in the brief session 
yet remaining; and that even were it possible so to perfect the 
platform and epitome, false impressions of imposition by synodical 
power might arise were they issued by the authority of the Council. 
The majority therefore recommended that the Council approve the 
statement of polity in a general way, but refer it to a special 
committee of twenty-five to be revised in a number of specified 
particulars, and such other ways, not inconsistent with its funda- 
mental principles, as should seem best; and that it should be 
issued by the committee of revision over the signatures of its 
members. Such were the suggestions of the majority; but one 
member, Rev. Dr. Leavitt, presented a minority statement,” in 
which he recommended that the platform and epitome of polity be 
published without approval as an interesting addition to our 
denominational literature; and that instead of setting forth a 
minute and technical treatise on church government, the Council 
simply declare a few principles of church polity of the most general 


1 Norwich, Conn. 2 Bangor, Me. 3 Windsor, Vt. 
4 Amherst, N. H. 5 New York city. 6 Chicago, 

7 Dubuque, Iowa. 8 Minneapolis, Minn. 9 Claridon, O. 
i0 Port Huron, Mich. 11 Leavenworth, Kan. 12 Lyme, Conn. 


13 Dehates and Proceedings, pp. 427-430. 14 Jé7d., pp. 430-437. 


THEVSTALTEMENT OF POLITY 567 


character, avoiding all denominational coloring, and declaring 
willingness to unite with all churches owned of Christ." 

These two conflicting recommendations naturally led to 
debate.2 Rev. Mr. Gulliver supported his position, and Rev. Dr. 
Leavitt his. Rev. Dr. Zachary Eddy* moved the adoption of the 
suggestions of the majority. Rev. Mr. Quint defended the original 
report from some of the criticisms of both wings of the second 
committee and opposed the appointment of a revising body of 
unwieldy numbers. Prof. Bartlett replied and defended the views 
of the majority of the second committee. Prof. Park followed in 
the same strain. Dr. Bacon then began an elaborate historical 
argument, setting forth with much power the desirability of a 
statement of polity, an argument interrupted by the arrival of the 
hour of adjournment but resumed at the next morning session. 
At that session Rev. Mr. Gulliver moved as an amendment that 
the original committee be added to the revisers, and Rev. Dr, 
Edward Beecher‘ supported the appointment of the proposed 
revision committee and expounded at length his views of the 
proper content of a work on Congregational polity. Prof. Law- 
rence heartily approved of Mr. Gulliver’s amendment. At this 
point Rev. Dr. Joseph Eldridge,®> moved by some expressions of 
Mr. Gulliver, the chairman of the second committee, in the current 
issue of the New York Jndependent derogatory of Connecticut 
consociationism, entered on a personal reply and a eulogy of that 
system. This was somewhat irrelevant to the purpose of the 
debate, and Prof. Park now proposed, as an amendment to Mr. 
Gulliver’s amendment, the following resolution, which forms the 
only statement of Congregational polity adopted by the Council :° 


SLATEMENT OF CONGREGATIONAL PRINCIPLES. 


“ Resolved, That this Council recognizes as distinctive of the 
Congregational polity -—— 

First, The principle that the local or Congregational church 
derives its power and authority directly from Christ, and is not 

1 His principles are /dzd., pp. 436, 437.. As far as any character can be ascribed to their very 
general statements they seem pure Independency. 


2 [bid., pp. 437-464. 3 Northampton, Mass. 4 Galesburg, Ill. 
5 Norfolk, Conn. 8 Debates and Proceedings, pp. 463, 464. 


568 THE SYMBOLS OF 1865 


subject to any ecclesiastical government exterior or superior to 
itself. 

Second, That every local or Congregational church is bound 
to observe the duties of mutual respect and charity which are 
included in the communion of churches one with another; and 
that every church which refuses to give an account of its proceed- 
ings, when kindly and orderly desired to do so by neighboring 
churches, violates the law of Christ. 

Third, That the ministry of the gospel by members of the 
churches who have been duly called and set apart to that work 
implies in itself no power of government, and that ministers of the 
gospel not elected to office in any church are not a hierarchy, nor 
are they invested with any official power in or over the churches.” 


This admirable epitome of the principles of modern Congre- 
gationalism was unanimously approved, and the report of the 
majority of the second committee, as amended by Mr. Gulliver, 
was duly adopted. Between such an affirmation of the most 
general facts of Congregationalism and the seventeenth century 
platforms a comparison is difficult; but one difference is clear, 
The positions of the first and second articles are unchanged, the 
latter half of the third would have met the approval of the fathers 
at Cambridge, but a Mather or a Cotton would have looked with 
astonishment on the statement that the duly established ministry 
implies “no power of government.” Yet in this the Statement 
reflects the position of present Congregationalism, that in matters 
of government the minister is at most but the moderator of the 
deliberations of the membership. The development of Congrega- 
tionalism has carried its polity to its logical outcome in pure 
democracy, and this fact here finds definite expression. 

The Council fulfilled its vote and appointed the revision com- 
mittee, to consider the platform and epitome of Dr. Bacon and 
Mr. Quint, as follows:’ Rev. Dr. Bacon, Rev. Mr. Quint, Rev. 
Dirssaiorotorrer brow Park, Prof. Harris, Prof. Bartlett, Prof. 
Fisher, Prof. Fairchild,? Rev. J. P. Gulliver, Rev. Dr. Benjamin 





1 Jbzd., p. 486. 2 Oberlin. 


THE “BOSTON PLATFORM” 569 


Labaree, Pres. Mark Hopkins,’ Rev. William Barrows,’ Rev. Dr. J. 
M: Sturtevant, Rev. Dr. T. M: Post,? Rev. Dr. Edward Beecher, 
Rey. Dr. William Salter,* Rev. J. 5. Hoyt, Rev. David Burt, Rev. 
Dr. J. P. Thompson, Hon. Woodbury Davis,® Hon. Henry Stock- 
bridge,’ Hon. J. H. Brockway,’ Rev. N. A. Hyde,® Rev. Dr. Leonard 
Swain, Rev. Richard Cordley,’° Asahel Finch, Esq.,"? Warren Currier, 
Esq.,’? and, by special vote, Rev. Dr. Rufus Anderson.’* This com- 
mittee did its work with much care, thoroughly digesting the 
forms presented to the Council, and published its result in 1872, 
with the approving srgnatures of its twenty-six surviving mem- 
bers."* It is a valuable statement, the product of much thought, 
and deserving of great respect. But owing perhaps to the willing- 
ness of our churches to be a law unto themselves, and the distaste 
of the present age for minute prescriptions and elaborate defini- 
tions, this document, sometimes known as the “ Boston Platform,” 
has never been widely known and has latterly been well-nigh for- 
gotten. It has hardly merited this fate, but the days of elaborate 
platforms, like that of Cambridge, are as fully past as those of 
lengthy confessions. 


1 Williams Coll. 2 Reading, Mass. 3 St. Louis, Mo. 4 Burlington, Ia. 
5 Winona, Minn. 6 Portland, Me. 7 Baltimore, Md. 

8 Ellington, Conn. ® Indianapolis, Ind. 10 Lawrence, Kan. 

11 Milwaukee, Wis. 12 St. Louis, Mo. 13 Sec. A. B. C. F. M. 


14 Ecclestastical Polity, The Government and Communion Practised by the Congrega- 
tional Churches in the United States of America, Which were Represented by Elders and 
Messengers in a National Council at Boston, A. D. 1505, Boston, 1872, 2d ed, 1879. 


37 


XIX 


THE “CONSTITUTION. OF THE NATIONAL Ca 
CIL AND “OBERLIN DECLAKA EIQNe ato 


EXT 


Minutes of the National Council of the Congregational Churches of the 
United States of America, at the First Session, Held in Oberlin, Ohio, November 
15-21, 1871, pp. 29-32, 63-67; in the Minutes of subsequent sessions of the Coun- 
cil; in Lcclesiastical Polity, The Government and Communion Practised by the 
Congregational Churches, etc., Boston, 1872 [1879], pp. 81-86 [without the ‘‘ Decla- 
ration on the Unity of the Church”’]. 


HE success of the Council of 1865 in fostering a spirit of 
unity and a sense of a common mission among Congrega- 
tionalists was conspicuous. While the body was without 

legislative authority, as becomes a Congregational synod, the rep- 
resentative character of its membership and the moderation and 
wisdom of its actions, only a small part of which have been had in 
review, gave it a wide influence. It was felt that so potent a pos- 
sible factor in denominational life should not be occasional, but 
permanent and regularly recurring. While a few ministers, and 
some of them of eminent fame in the denomination, feared a possible 
loss of independence to the churches, the majority were ready to 
welcome an established Council. These views found expression 
in a manner well described in the note introductory to the Winutes 
of the Oberlin Council:’ 

‘*On the approach of the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the landing of 
the Pilgrims, the Church of the Pilgrimage, at Plymouth, Mass., invited the churches 
to meet by delegates at New York, to consider the appropriateness of particular ac- 
tion in celebrating this fifth jubilee. Such a meeting was held March 2, 1870; and 
it appointed a general committee for its purposes, consisting of Hon. Edward S. 
Tobey, Rev. William W. Patton, D.D., Rev. Henry M. Dexter, D-DijySamaet 
Holmes, A. S. Barnes, Rev. Ray Palmer, D.D., and Rev. Alonzo H. Quint, D.D.; 


of which the first named was chairman, Rev. Dr. Dexter, secretary, and Mr. Holmes, 
treasurer. 


1 Pp. 7, 8 


(570) 


THE NATIONAL COUNCIL 571 


Among the acts of this committee was the calling of a Pzlerim Memorial Con- 
vention, which met at Chicago, Ill., April 27, 1870, open to delegates from all the 
churches in the United States. 

Of that convention, B. W. Tompkins, of Connecticut, was Moderator ; Hon. 
E. D. Holton, of Wisconsin, Rev. Samuel Wolcott, D.D., of Ohio, and Rev. George 
F. Magoun, of Iowa, Vice-Moderators ; Rev. Henry C. Abernethy, of Illinois, Rev. 
Philo R. Hurd, D.D., of Michigan, and Rev. L. Smith Hobart, of New York, Sec- 
retaries ; and Rev. William W. Patton, D.D., of Illinois, Dr. Samuel Holmes, of 
New York, Hon. C. J. Walker, of Michigan, James L. Kearnie, of Missouri, and 
Rev. Rowland B. Howard, of Illinois, Azstzess Committee. 

Among the resolutions adopted by that large convention were the following : 


Resolved, That this Pilgrim Memorial Convention recommend 
to the Congregational State Conferences and Associations, and to 
other local bodies, to unite in measures for instituting on the prin- 
ciple of fellowship, excluding ecclesiastical authority, a permanent 
National Conference. 


The General Conference of Ohio was the first to propose definite action. That 
Conference appointed a committee (Rev. A. Hastings Ross! being made chairman) 
to correspond with the other State organizations and propose a convention to mature 
the plan. The several State organizations approved of the proposed National organ- 
ization, and appointed committees. The General Association of New York proposed 
that a meeting of these committees be held in Boston, December 21, 1870, and its 
committee (Rev. L. Smith Hobart,’ chairman), issued circulars to that effect. The 
Committee of the General Association of Massachusetts adopted the proposal, and 
issued invitations accordingly.” 


Thus the steps leading to the permanent National Council 
were similar to those which had brought about the Council of 
1865. In accordance with this invitation, committees representing 
the state organizations of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, 
Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Michi- 
gan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, met in Boston at the time sug- 
gested,* and formed a convention with Rev. Dr. E. B. Webb* as 
moderator, Hon. A. C. Barstow® as assistant moderator, Pres. Wil- 
liam E. Merriman® as scribe, and Hon. H. S. McCall’ as assistant 
scribe. This body unanimously — 

‘Resolved, That it is expedient, and appears clearly to be the voice of the 


churches, that a National Council of the Congregational Churches of the United 
States be organized”; 


and invited the churches to meet by delegates appointed in pro- 


1 Then of Springfield, O. 2 New York city. 
3 For their doings in full, see W/zxzztes of Oberlin Council, pp. 9-12. 
4 Boston, 5 Providence, R. I. 6 Ripon, Wis. 7 New York, 


572 THE OBERLIN DECLARATION 


portion substantially like the representation in the Council of 1865, 
at such time and place as a preliminary committee appointed by 
the convention should designate. It also suggested the outline of 
a constitution to be presented to the Council that was to be, and 
entrusted its preparation, as well as the call of the Council, to the 
following persons, — Rev. Dr. A. H. Quint,’ Pres. W. E. Merriman, 
Prof. S. Cy Bartlett,? Dea. Samuel Holmes;*, Maj. Gen) Oia. 
ard,* Rev. Dr. W. I. Buddington,® and Hon. A. C. Barstow.°® 
Pursuant to the call of this preliminary committee, the desired 
Council met at Oberlin, Ohio, November 15, 1871, with an attend- 
ance of 276 delegates from twenty-five states and territories, and 
fourteen honorary and corresponding members. After effecting a 
temporary organization, with Hon. Erastus D. Holton’ as modera- 
tor, and Dea. Samuel Holmes as scribe, the Council received the 
report on the proposed constitution and considered it, paragraph 
by paragraph, at five sessions. ‘The section relating to faith® was 
referred to a special committee, — Prof. S. C. Bartlett, Hon. Elisha 
Carpenter,’ Hon. C. J, Walker,’® Rey. Drs. L. E: Dwinell yandeee 
T. Fiske”; and various slight modifications of the document were 
suggested and adopted, A debate and two ballots resulted in the 
choice of “°Council”’ vas the “designation of the bodys sBitad: 
serious alterations were made in the draft, and on Nov. 17, the 


following agreement was unanimously adopted: 


“THE CONSTITUTION, 


The Congregational churches of the United States, by elders 
and messengers assembled, do now associate themselves in Na- 
tional Council: 

To express and foster their substantial unity in doctrine, 
polity, and work; and 

To consult upon-the common interests of all the churches, 
their duties in the work of evangelization, the united development 
of their resources, and their relations to all parts of the kingdom 
of Christ. 


1 New Bedford, Mass. 2 Chicago Sem. 3 Montclair, N. J. and New York city. 


4 Washington, D. C. 5 Brooklyn, N. Y. 6 Providence, R.I. 7 Milwaukee, Wis. 
® Paragraph 4. ® Hartford, Conn. 10 Detroit, Mich. 11 Sacramento, Cal, 


12 Newburyport, Mass. 


TEXT OF*THE CONSTITUTION 573 


They agree in belief that the Holy Scriptures are the sufficient 
and only infallible rule of religious faith and practice; their inter- 
pretation thereof being in substantial accordance with the great 
doctrines of the Christian faith, commonly called evangelical, held 
in our churches from the early times, and sufficiently set forth by 
former General Councils.’ 

They agree in the belief that the right of government resides 
in local churches, or congregations of believers, who are responsi- 
ble directly to the Lord Jesus Christ, the One Head of the church 
universal and of all particular churches; but that all churches, 
being in communion one with another as parts of Christ’s catholic 
church, have mutual duties subsisting in the obligations of fellow- 
ship. 

The churches; therefore, while establishing this National Coun- 
cil for the furtherance of the common interests and work of all 
the churches, do maintain the Scriptural and inalienable right of 
each church to self-government and administration; and this Na- 
tional Council shall never exercise legislative or judicial authority, 
nor consent to act as a council of reference. 

And for the convenience of orderly consultation, they establish 
the following Rules: — . 

I. Sesstons—The churches will meet in National Council 
every third year. They shall also be convened in special session 
whenever any five of the general State organizations shall so request. 

II. Representation The churches shall be represented, at 
each session, by delegates, either ministers or laymen, appointed 
in number and manner as follows: — 

1. The churches, assembled in their local organizations, 
appoint one delegate for every ten churches in their respective 
organizations, and one for a fraction of ten greater than one-half, 
it being understood that whenever the churches of any State are 
directly united in a general organization, they may, at their option, 
appoint the delegates in such body, instead of in local organiza- 
tions, but in the above ratio of churches so united. 

2. In addition to the above, the churches united in State or- 
ganization appoint by such body one delegate, and one for each 
ten thousand communicants in their fellowship, and one for a 
major fraction thereof:— 

3. It being recommended that the number of delegates be, in 
all cases, divided between ministers and laymen, as nearly equally. 
as is practicable. : 


1 This clause, from the word ‘ practice’’ onward, was substituted for a direct reference to the 
Burial Hill Declaration by the special committee, to whom this paragraph was referred. 


574 THE OBERLIN DECLARATION 


4. Such Congregational general societies for Christian work, 
and the faculties of such theological seminaries, as may be recog- 
nized by this Council, may be represented by one delegate each, 
such representatives having the right of discussion only, 

III. Oficers—t1. At the beginning of every stated or special 
session, there shall be chosen by ballot, from those present as 
members, a moderator, and one or more assistant moderators, to 
preside over its deliberations. 

2. At each triennial session, there shall be chosen by ballot a 
secretary, a registrar, and a treasurer, to serve from the close of 
such session to the close of the next triennial session. 

3. The secretary shall receive communications for the Coun- 
cil, conduct correspondence, and collect such facts, and superintend 
such publications, as may from time to time be ordered. 

4. The registrar shall make and preserve the records of the 
proceedings of the Council; and for his aid, one or more assistants 
shall be chosen at each session, to serve during such session. 

5. The treasurer shall do the work ordinarily belonging to 
such office. 

6. At each triennial session, there shall be chosen a pro- 


visional:committee, who shall make needful arrangements for the ~ 


next triennial session, and for any session called during the interval. 

7. Committees shall be appointed, and in such manner, as 
may from time to time be ordered, 

8. Any member of a church in fellowship may be chosen to 
the office of secretary, registrar, or treasurer; and such officers as 
are not delegates shall have all the privileges of members, except 
that of voting. 

IV. #By-Laws.’— The Council may make and alter By-laws at 
any triennial session. 

V. Amendments.— This constitution shall not be altered or 
amended, except at a triennial session, and by a two-thirds vote, 
notice thereof having been given at a previous triennial session, or 
the proposed alteration having been requested by some general 
State organization of churches, and published with the notification 
of the session,” 


The work on the constitution was completed on the afternoon 
of November 17. On the evening before, the Council had listened 
to a paper by Rev. Dr. William I. Buddington? on the Unity of the 


1 I omit the by-laws as of temporary importance. 2 Brooklyn, N. Y. 


TEXT OF THE DECLARATION 575 


Church. That paper was referred, on the morning after its pre- 
sentation, to a committee composed of Rev. Dr. Leonard Bacon, 
Rev. Dr. Truman M. Post,’ and Charles B. Lines, Esq.;? and on 
November 18 these brethren reported, and the Council adopted, 
a declaration which the Council “ordered to be put on record in 
close proximity to the constitution,” * and which has ever since 
been regarded as part of the basis of the body. It runs thus: * 


“DECLARATION ON THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 


The members of the National Council, representing the Congre- 
gational churches of the United States, avail themselves of this 
opportunity to renew their previous declarations of faith in the 
unity of the church of God. 

While affirming the liberty of our churches, as taught in the 
New Testament, and inherited by us from our fathers, and from 
martyrs and confessors of foregoing ages, we adhere to this liberty 
all the more as affording the ground and hope of a more visible 
unity in time to come. We desire and purpose to codperate with 
all the churches of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

In the expression of the same catholic sentiments solemnly 
avowed by the Council of 1865, on the Burial Hill at Plymouth, we 
wish, at this new epoch of our history, to remove, so far as in us 
lies, all causes of suspicion and alienation, and to promote the 
growing unity of council and of effort among the followers of Christ. 
To us, as to our brethren, ‘There is one body and one spirit, even 
as we are called in one hope of our calling.’ 

As little as did our fathers in their days, do we in ours, make 
a pretension to be the only churches of Christ. We find ourselves 
consulting and acting together under the distinctive name of Con- 
gregationalists, because, in the present condition of our common 
Christianity, we have felt ourselves called to ascertain and do our 
Own appropriate part of the work of Christ’s church among men. 

We especially desire, in prosecuting the common work of 
evangelizing our own land and the world, to observe the common 
and sacred law, that in the wide field of the world’s evangelization, 
we do our work in friendly codperation with all those who love and 
serve our common Lord. 





1 St. Louis, Mo. 2 Waubaunsee, Kan. 
3 Minutes of Oberlin Council, p. 36. 4 Jbtd., pp. 31, 32, 65, 66. 


576 THE OBERLIN DECLARATION 


We believe in ‘the holy catholic church.’ It is our prayer and 
endeavor, that the unity of the church may be more and more 
apparent, and that the prayer of our Lord for his disciples may be 
speedily and completely answered, and all be one; that by conse- 
quence of this Christian unity in love, the world may believe in 
Christ as sent of the Father to save the world.” 


The National Council, thus established, has more than vindi- 
cated its right to be. Though subject to protest during its early 
years from the churches of New Jersey’ and New York’ asa possi- 
ble menace to Congregational independence, it has always had the 
support of a vast majority of the Congregational body, and has 
already substantially outlived criticism. It has unified the statistics 
of the denomination, it has relieved friction between the benevolent 
societies of our body, it has been largely instrumental in making 
some of them truly representative of the churches, and will doubt- 
less eventually bring all into directly responsible connection, and 
above all it has fostered the spirit of denominational unity and 
fellowship, which the Congregationalism of the first half of this 
century so largely lacked, and which is essential to all permanent 
growth. 

Its statements of faith, adopted at Oberlin, are valuable as 
illustrating the catholicity of spirit which has accompanied this 
growth of denominational consciousness. In matters of doctrine 
the constitution is more important for what it does not affirm than 
for that which it declares. Though nowhere expressly stated, the 
understanding at Oberlin at its adoption, and the interpretation 
since usually put upon it, is that it holds out the olive branch of 
denominational fellowship to brethren of Arminian sympathies, and 
is but a further illustration of that desire not to limit Congrega- 
tional brotherhood to those who hold exclusively the system known 
as “Calvinism,” which was already manifest in the Council of 1865. 





1 The General Association of this state protested in 1877 and 1880 against the continuance of 
the National Council as a regularly recurrent body, meeting to give advice in denominational 
matters. J/znutes of Council of 1877, pp. 19, 22, 37, 38; of 1880, pp. 15, 16, 26, 27, 186-191. 

2 The General Association requested in 1880 that the Council refrain from expressing opinions 
by votes, and the Hudson River Association asked the same year that the functions of the Council 
be more clearly defined. See references in previous note. 


| SOx 
CHE “COMMISSION > CREED: OF 1883 


ERX 


The Congregationalist for March 6, 1884, and other contemporary religious 
papers; Huntington, Outlines of Congregational History, Boston, 1885, pp. 189- 
194; Boardman, Congregationalism, Chicago [1889], pp. 62, 63. 


LITERATURE 
The Minutes of the National Council of 1880; Religious newspapers contem- 


porary with its publication. 

HE doctrinal expressions put forth by the Councils of 1865 
a and 1871 were the first united confessions which American 

Congregationalism had produced for more than two hundred 

years. But they were far from universally satisfactory. Their 
language was too general, and they were not adapted to form the 
creed-expressions of local churches, newly founded or desiring to 
modify their creeds. It was, moreover, a question in many minds 
how far the allusions of the Burial Hill Confession to the symbols 
of 1648 and 1680 implied that those venerable documents were 
authoritative standards of modern Congregationalism. On a strict 
construction of that Declaration it certainly appeared that the 
Council at Plymouth reaffirmed the doctrinal statements of those 
ancient formulz with substantial fullness; but it might well be 
that this reference to the productions of these seventeenth century 
synods was, as Dr. Bacon styled it, merely a ‘rhetorical discourse.”? 
So strongly was the desire felt for a simple declaration, in modern 
language, that the Oberlin Council of 1871 put on record its judg- 
ment that there had? — 
‘“come up, from all quarters, earnest calls for some brief manual of doctrine and 
polity for use in the families and Sunday-schools of our churches ”’; 
and, hearing that a manual was in “preparation by the Congrega- 
tional Publishing Society,” the assembly at Oberlin appointed a 


1 Independent, Oct. 14, 1880. 2 Minutes of National Council, 1871, p. 41. . 


C577) 


578 THE CREED OF 1883 


committee of five to whom it could be submitted for approval.’ 
The publication of the so-called “ Boston Platform,” in 1872, by 
the committee appointed by the Council of 1865, made the com- 
mittee of the Council of 1871 feel discharged of any further duty 
in the matter.? But the lack of such an outline of doctrine was 
increasingly felt, and led, in 1879, to the appointment by the Con- 
gregational Association of Ohio of a committee, of which Rev. 
James Brand* was chairman, to consider what might be done to 
supply the want. At its suggestion the Ohio Association, at its 
meeting in Wellington in May, 1880, adopted an elaborate memo- 
rial, addressed to the National Council, setting forth the deficien- 
cies of the previous declarations, and the inexpediency of reaffirm- 
ing the seventeenth century creeds, and asking the Council to take 
into consideration, in such way as should seem best to it, the de- 
sirability of a “formula that shall not be mainly a reaffirmation of 
former confessions, but that shall state in precise terms in our 
living tongue the doctrines which we hold to-day.”* This memo- 
rial was seconded by similar appeals from the General Conference 
of Minnesota,° and the Central South Conference of Tennessee; ° 
and the three memorials were duly laid before the National Coun- 
cil on November 11, 1880, at its session in St. Louis, Mo.” There 
they were reinforced by an able and convincing historical and 
argumentative paper by Prof. Hiram Mead.* The Council referred 
this paper and the memorials to a committee consisting of Rev. 
Dr. A. L. Chapin,* Rev. C. D. Barrows,” Reév.:Dr. 5S. BR. Dennen 
Rev. Dr. .N. A. Hyde; Rev. F. P. Woodbury,” Dea Di Geiaenes 
and J. E. Sargent, Esq.** This committee sympathized with the 
memorialists, and at its recommendation,*® the Council, on Nov. 


15, adopted the following resolutions:”’ 


‘* Resolved, (1) That the paper on creeds!® be printed, and receive the thoughtful 
consideration of the churches. 


1 Jb7zd., p. 46. 2 Minutes of 1874, p. 32. 

3 Oberlin, O. See Minutes of 1880, p. 133. 4In full, 7dzd., pp. 133-138. 

5 Jbid., Ppp. 139, 140. 8 Jbid., pp. 138, 139. TUTE jo 1iy 

8 Jbtd., pp. 144-173. Of the Theo. Sem., Oberlin, O. 9 Beloit, Wis. 

10 Lowell, Mass. 11 New Haven, Conn. 12 Indianapolis, Ind. 
13 Rockford, Ill. 14 Minneapolis, Minn, 15 Concord, N. H. 
16 Its report in full, 7dzd., pp. 198, 199. 17 Jbid., pp. 24, 25. 


18 Prof. Mead’s. 


THE CREED-COMMISSION 579 


Resolved, (2) That a committee of seven be appointed, who shall, as soon as 
practicable after the adjournment of the Council, select from among the members of 
our churches, in different parts of our land, twenty-five men of piety and ability, well 
versed in the truths of the Bible, and representing different shades of thought among 
us, who may be willing to confer and act together as a commission to prepare, in the 
form of a creed or catechism, or both, a simple, clear, and comprehensive exposition 
of the truths of the glorious gospel of the blessed God, for the instruction and edifi- 
cation of our churches. 

Resolved, (3) That the committee of seven take pains to secure the willing co-op- 
eration of the men selected ; that the commission be left, without specific instructions 
from this body, to adopt their own methods of proceeding, and to take time as they 
may find necessary to perfect their work; and that the result of their labors, when 
complete, be reported — not to this Council, but to the churches and to the world 
through the public press — to carry such weight of authority as the character of the 
commission and the intrinsic merit of their exposition of truth may command.” 


In accordance with this vote, the Council appointed the same 
committee to whose recommendation the resolutions were due to 
select the twenty-five commissioners;’ and, as a result of their 
choice, the following ministers and teachers, designed to be widely 
representative of Congregationalism, geographically and theologi- 
cally, were selected to prepare the desired creed,’ — Pres, Julius H. 
Seelye,® Prof. Charles M, Mead,* Rev, Dr. Henry M, Dexter,’ Rev. 
Dr Edmund K Alden,” Rev, Dr, Alexander McKenzie,’ Rev. Dr. 
James G, Johnson,® Prof. George P, Fisher,® Rev, Dr. George Leon 
Walker,” Prof. William S, Karr," Prof. George T, Ladd,’* Rev. Dr. 
Samuel P. Leeds,** Rev, Dr. David B, Coe,* Rev. Dr, William M. 
Taylor,’® Rev. Dr. Lyman Abbott,’® Rev. Dr, Augustus F, Beard,’ 
Pres. William W. Patton,’® Pres, James H. Fairchild,” Pres, Israel W. 
Andrews,” Rev. Dr. Zachary Eddy,” Prof. James T. Hyde,” Rev. Dr. 
Edward P. Goodwin,” Rev. Dr, Alden B, Robbins,** Rev, Dr. Constans 
L. Goodell,?® Rev. Dr. Richard Cordley,”® and Prof. George Mooar.?’ 

After much deliberation and correspondence, and much labor 
in sub-committees and as a whole, the Commission, on Dec. 109, 
1883, put forth its creed, as follows: ”* 


1 Jhtd., p. 24. 2 Minutes of 1883, p. 23. 8 Pres. Amherst College. 

4 Andover Sem, 5 Editor Congregationadlist, S'Secy Al B.C. Fy M-. 

7 Cambridge, Mass, 8 Rutland, Vt. ® Yale Sem, 

10 Hartford, Conn, 11 Hartford Theo, Sem, 12 Bowdoin Coll., Me., then Yale. 
13 Hanover, N. H. 14 Sec, A, H. M, S. 15 New York city. 

16 Editor Christian Union. 17 Syracuse, N. Y. 

18 Pres. Howard Univ. 19 Pres, Oberlin Coll. 20 Marietta Coll., O. 

21 Detroit, Mich. 22 Chicago Sem. 23 Chicago, Ill. 

24 Muscatine, Ia, 25 St. Louis, Mo. 26 Emporia, Kan. 


27 Pacific Sem, 28 From copy sent to members of the committee for signature. 


580 THE CREED OF 1883 


“STATEMENT OF DOCTRINE: 


I. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of 
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; 

And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who is of one 
substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; 

And in. the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who is sent 
from the Father and Son, and who together with the Father and 
Son is worshiped and glorified. 

II. We believe that the providence of God, by which he exe- 
cutes his eternal purposes in the government of the world, is in 
and over all events; yet so that the freedom and responsibility of 
man are not impaired, and sin is the act of the creature alone. 

III. . We believe that man was made in the image of God, that 
he might know, love, and obey God, and enjoy him forever; that 
our first parents by disobedience fell under the righteous condemna- 
tion of God; and that all men are so alienated from God that there 
is no salvation from the guilt and power of sin except through 
God’s redeeming grace. 

IV. We believe that God would have all men return to him; 
that to this end he has made himself known, not only through the 
works of nature, the course of his providence, and the consciences 
of men, but also through supernatural revelations made especially to 
a chosen people, and above all, when the fullness of time was come, 
through Jesus Christ his Son. 

V. We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testa- 
ments are the records of God’s revelation of himself in the work of 
redemption; that they were written by men under the special guid- 
ance of the Holy Spirit; that they are able to make wise unto 
salvation; and that they constitute the authoritative standard by 
which religious teaching and human conduct are to be regulated 
and judged. 

VI. We believe that the love of God to sinful men has found 
its highest expression in the redemptive work of his Son; who 
became man, uniting his divine nature with our human nature in 
one person; who was tempted like other men, yet without sin; who 
by his humiliation, his holy obedience, his sufferings, his death on 
the cross, and his resurrection, became a perfect Redeemer; whose 
sacrifice of himself for the sins of the world declares the righteous- 
ness of God, and is the sole and sufficient ground of forgiveness 
and of reconciliation with him. 


TEXT OF THE CREED 581 


VII. We believe that Jesus Christ, after he had risen from 
the dead, ascended into heaven, where, as the one mediator 
between God and man, he carries forward his work of saving men; 
that he sends the Holy Spirit to convict them of sin, and to lead 
them to repentance and faith; and that those who through renew- 
ing grace turn to righteousness, and trust in Jesus Christ as their 
Redeemer, receive for his sake the forgiveness of their sins, and 
are made the children of God. 

VIII. We believe that those who are thus regenerated and 
justified, grow in sanctified character through fellowship with 
Christ, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and obedience to. the 
truth; that a holy life is the fruit and evidence of saving faith; 
and that the believer’s hope of continuance in such a life is in the 
preserving grace of God. 

IX. We believe that Jesus Christ came to establish among 
men the kingdom of God, the reign of truth and love, righteous- 
ness and peace; that to Jesus Christ, the Head of his kingdom, 
Christians are directly responsible in faith and conduct; and that 
to him all have immediate access without mediatorial or priestly 
intervention. 

X. We believe that the Church of Christ, invisible and 
spiritual, comprises all true believers, whose duty it is to associate 
themselves in churches, for the maintenance of worship, for the 
promotion of spiritual growth and fellowship, and for the conver- 
sion of men; that these churches, under the guidance of the Holy 
Scriptures and in fellowship with one another, may determine — 
each for itself — their organization, statements of belief, and forms 
of worship, may appoint and set apart their own ministers, and 
should co-operate in the work which Christ has committed to them 
for the furtherance of the gospel throughout the world. 

XI. We believe in the observance of the Lord’s Day, as a 
day of holy rest and worship; in the ministry of the word; and in 
the two sacraments, which Christ has appointed for his church: 
Baptism, to be administered to believers and their children, as a 
sign of cleansing from sin, of union to Christ, and of the imparta- 
tion of the Holy Spirit; and the Lord’s Supper, as a symbol of his 
atoning death, a seal of its efficacy, and a means whereby he con- 
firms and strengthens the spiritual union and communion of be- 
lievers with himself. 

XII. We believe in the ultimate prevalence of the kingdom 
of Christ over all the earth; in the glorious appearing of the great 
God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; in the resurrection of the dead; 


582 THE CREED OF 1883 


and in a final judgment, the issues of which are everlasting punish- 
ment and everlasting life.””? 


To this creed were appended the signatures of twenty-two of 
the twenty-five commissioners. ‘Three of the twenty-five, Rev. Dr. 
E. K. Alden, Prof. W. S. Karr, and Rev. Dr. E. P. Goodwin, declined 
to sign the document, the two former as failing adequately to rep- 
resent their views in various particulars, and the latter assigning 
as his reason inability to be present at the meetings of the com- 
mission. But probably the creed was agreed upon with as great a 
degree of unanimity as any statement of faith in modern language, 
and of a definite character, would be in the present age by an equal 
number of representatives of any of the Protestant communions of 
America. It has had, and still has, its critics; but its reception 
has justified the appointment of the commission, and it is increas- 
ingly referred to as a standard of doctrine by ministerial and 
missionary candidates. The free system of Congregationalism 
allows every church to formulate its own creed; but this confes- 
sion is coming more and more to be employed as a local statement 
of faith, especially by newly formed churches. Its merits are ob- 
vious, It is simple, clear,and modern. It represents a fair con- 
sensus of the actual present faith of the Congregational churches. 
Though imposed by no authority, and accepted only in so far as it 
is its own commendation, it gives the Congregational body what 
no other considerable denomination of Christians in America pos- 
sesses,—a widely recognized creed, written in the language and 
expressing the thought of living men, As such it is vindicating 
its usefulness more and more, 


The long story of the development of Congregational plat- 
forms and confessions has thus been passed in review. It is a 
history of strength and of weakness, of apprehensions of divine 





1 A form for admission of members to the church was prepared, somewhat hastily, by the 
Commission, It has never given general satisfaction, and the National Council of 1889 appointed a 
committee to revise it, JJznutes, pp, 33, 43. Their report has not yet been made. 


TRAITS OF CONGREGATIONALISM 583 


truth and of occasional mistake. The history of the intermingling 
forces of the human and the divine in the unfolding of the King- 
dom of God on earth must ever be so. But the story has been 
told to little purpose if two essential features of Congregational 
life have not appeared,—those of unity and growth. The fathers 
of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, applying the Reforma- 
tion principle of the authority of the Word of God to polity as 
well as to doctrine, sketched out the essential features of a Con- 
gregational church as they believed it to be divinely appointed. 
In common with their Puritan brethren they formulated the doc- 
trinal system of the Gospel as they read it in the same divine 
record. On the basis of their two-fold work Congregationalism 
still stands. The essential features of the church as it appeared 
to them are the distinctive characteristics of a Congregational church 
to-day. The great truths which they maintained constitute, in their 
broad outline, the doctrinal basis of modern Congregationalism, 

But the Congregational body of to-day is no mere residuum 
of sixteenth century discussions. If the main lines of its doctrine 
and polity were then laid down, it has made progress along them 
all. The fathers recognized the right of the brethren to a share 
in church-government, though they limited this right by the large 
prerogatives of ministerial office; modern Congregationalism has 
seen the wisdom of their trust and has removed their barriers, so 
that now its system is a pure democracy. The fathers believed 
that the churches should have upon them the restraining hand of 
the civil magistrate; modern Congregationalism has learned that 
in brotherly admonition rather than in legal coercion the truer 
remedy for churchly evils is to be found. To the civil govern- 
ment the fathers looked for the call of a general assembly of the 
churches; modern Congregationalism has found that in voluntary 
association is to be obtained the benefits that they sought, without 
the dangers of their method. And it has also discovered that a 
far greater range of Christian activities than the fathers dreamed 
of, in home and foreign missions, in the training of Christian min- 
isters, in charitable work for the needy in body and spirit, can be 


DOA age THE CREED OF 1883 


carried on by the associated effort of Congregational churches, 
without forfeiting the self-government of the local congregation 
which the fathers justly prized. 

So, too, in doctrine. The fathers stood on the common basis 
of Puritanic Calvinism; modern Congregationalism is simpler, less 
scholastic in its faith, more catholic in its sympathies. If it is 
less confident than were the fathers that it understands all the 
secrets of the divine counsel, it is more conscious of its duties 
toward a suffering and sinning world. The Gospel it presents is 
essentially the same that the fathers set forth as the basis of 
their faith, but it holds that Gospel to be intended for all men and 
to be wide enough in its provisions of redemption for the needs of 
the whole human race. 

As has been the past, so, under the good hand of God, we 
may expect the future to be. Congregationalism can no more rest 
in its present status than in that of the Cambridge Platform. It 
will preserve its historic continuity, its roots will run back deep 
into the past, but it will, we may believe, deepen in knowledge and 
broaden in sympathy till it comes to the full measure of the pat- 
tern in accordance with which the Master designed his church on 
earth to be fashioned. 


INDEX 


BBOTT, George, archbishop, op- 
poses granting of charter for settle- 
ment in America to London ch., 86. 
Abbott, Rev. Lyman, on creed-commis- 
sion, 579. 

Abernethy, Rev. H. C., 571. 

Act, Conventicle, 442; Corporation, 
abolished, 544; Five Mile, 442; Nav- 
igation, 411; Test, abolished, 544; 
Toleration, 443 ; of Uniformity, 442. 

Addington, Isaac, 497. 

Adoption, doctrine of, Savoy Declara- 
tion, 380. 

Agreement, Heads of (see Heads of 
Agreement). - 

Ainsworth, Henry, biog. sketch, 43; 
chosen teacher of London-Amster- 
dam ch., 43; share in Confession of 
1596, 43, 44; translates it into Latin, 
48; in London with Separatist peti- 
tions, 1603, 76. 

Albany Convention, call and work, 538- 
540; abrogation of Plan of Union, 
539, 540, 553- 

Alden, Rev. E. K., on creed-commis- 
sion, 579; dissents from result, 582. 

Alexander, Rev. Archibald, 532. . 

Allegiance, Oath of, Leyden ch. willing 
to take, gI. 

Allen, Capt. Bozoun, dispute over his 
election at Hingham, 1645, 160-163. 

Allen, Rev. George, protests against 
Burial Hill Declaration, 561. 

Allen, Rev. James, on committee of Sy- 
nod, 1679, 419; a conservative, 467; 
opposes Brattle ch., 477; circular let- 
ter, 484. 

Allen, Thomas, publishes report to 
Camb. Synod on power of magistrates, 


176. 

Allen, Rev. Thomas, of Charlestown, 
views on baptism, 251. 

Allen, William, founds Douai Seminary, 


79: 
Allerton, Isaac, of Plymouth, 727. 
Allin, Rev. John, of Dedham, advice to 
Mass. Court, 177; sermon at Camb. 
Synod, 183; Half-way Covenant views, 
249; called to Assembly of 1657, 258; 


38 


at Synod of 1662, 265, 269; defends 
its result, 269. 

Allin, Rev. Thomas, 135. 

Ames, Rev. William, associated with 
Hooker, 140; works cited, 366; works 
studied at Yale, 497; (see also IIO.) 

Amsterdam, London ch. emigrates to, 
42; Confession issued there in 1596 
and 1598, 43-48; ‘‘ Points of Differ- 
ence,” 1603, 76; Scrooby ch. at, 83. 

Anabaptists, why so called, 2; originate 
in Switzerland, 2; Persecuted, 2; at- 
tempt fully to carry out reformation 
principles,” 2} 3; “im Holland;’3—7°, 
their views, 3, 4; their confession, 
4-6; in England, 6, 7; protected by 
William of Orange, 6; possible influ- 
ence on early Congregationalism in 
England, 7, 10; I5-17. 

Anderson, Rev. Bankes, Savoy Synod, 
348. 

Anderson, Rev. Rufus, 569. 

Andrew, Rev. Samuel, trustee of Yale, 
498; at Saybrook Synod, 502; recep- 
tion of Platform in New Haven 
County, 51I-513. 

Andrews, Dr. Chas. M., views on set- 
tlement of Conn., 157, 158. 

Andrews, Pres. 1. W., on creed-commis- 
sion, 579. 

Annestey, Rev. Sam., 445, 452. 

Antinomian dispute and synod, 1637, 
hteratarey/133: 

‘* Apologeticaii Narration,” by Cong. in 
West. Assembly, 137, 343. 
Arminianism, in eighteenth 
NIA 284): 

576. 

Articles, the Seven. SeeSeven Articles. 
Thirty-nine, sufficient doctrinal ex- 
pression for Cong., 462. 

Aspinwall, Wm., deacon at Boston, 129. 

Assembly, Ministers of 1643, recom- 
mends Minister’s Meetings, 469. 

Assembly, Ministerial, of 1657, origin 
and cali, 257, 258; objections of New 
Haven, 259-261; membership, 258, 
259 ; meeting and work, 261, 262; ex- 
tracts from result, 288-300. 


(585) 


century 
at Oberlin Council, 


530 


Assembly, Presbyterian. See Presby- 
terian General Assembly. 

Assembly, Westminster, See Westmin- 
ster Assembly. 

Associations, Ministerial, recommended 
in Heads of Agreement, 461; their 
early history in Mass., 467, 469; 
abandoned, 470; revived, 470; the 
Cambridge-Boston Association, 470+ 
472; other early Associations, 471; 
their strengthening sought, 483, 484; 
meeting of delegates, Boston, 1705, 
485; in Proposals of 1705, 487; in 
Saybrook Platform, 501, 502; estab- 
lished, 507. 

Associations, General, established, 506, 
538. 

Association, Hartford North, vote of 
1799, 514, 526. 

Assurance, doctrine of, 385. 


Biren Rev. Leonard, influence, 

515; at Albany Convention, 539; 
chairman prelim. com. on _ Polity, 
1865, 555; in debate on Decl. of 
Faith, 560, 561, 562; criticism of 
Decls, 5977) 2) Teport fon Polityarson. 
in debate on polity, 567; chairman 
of large com. on a Platform, 568; 
Oberlin Declaration, 1871, 575; quo- 
ted, 446, 447. 

Balkam, Rey. Uriah, in debate on Dec- 
laration of 1865, 559, 560. 

Ball, Rev. John, reply to Davenport, 135. 

Ballot, written, first use, 103. 

Bancroft, Rich., archbishop, sermon at 
Paul’s Cross, 1589, 78, 98 

Baptism (see also Half-Way Covenant), 
towhom administered, Browne’s views, 
20; administered to infants of ch. 
members, Conf. of 1596, 70; ‘‘ Points 
of Difference,” 1603, 80; one parent 
must be-a ch. memb., Leyden .ch., 
1618, 91; only children of ch. memb., 
Hooker’s' Principles, 145; serious 
grievances regarding baptism, 165; 
lead to Cambridge Synod, 167-171; 
differing practices in N. E., call of 
Cambridge Synod, 169; settlement of 
question put off at Synod, 181; bap- 
tism does not admit to ch., it belongs 
to ch. members, 246; doctrine of, 
Savoy Declaration, 398; extension 
of, desired by Brattle Ch. founders, 
474; doctrine of, English Decl., 550; 
Creed of 1883, 581. 

Baptised children, advantages of, Camb. 
Platform, 224. 

Baptists, principles practiced in N. E., 
1646, 169; fear of, 249. 

Barnard, Dear Sasos.uesce 

Barnes, Rev. Albert, trial, 535-537. 


INDEX 


Barnes, A. S., 570. 

Barnet, Rev. Samuel, letter, 347. 

Barrowe, Henry, biog. sketch, 29; con- 
nection with confession of 1589, 29; 
peculiarities of his views, 31, 32; 
martyrdom, 30, 49, 52. 

Barrowism, how differing from Brown- 
ism, 32; early N. E. Cong. Barrowist 
rather than Brownist, 135; Cambridge 
Platform, 185. 

Barrows, Kev. C. D., steps toward the 
Creed of 1883, 578, 579. 

Barrows, Rev. William, 569. 

Barstow, Hon. A. C., preparations for 
National Council, 571, 572. 

Bartlett, Prof. S. C., com. on Polity, 
Council of 1865, 566; in debate, 567; 
com. on a Platform, 568; Oberlin 
Counctl, 472. 

Baxter, Richard, criticises Savoy Decla- 
ration, 352. 

Beard, Rev. A. F., on creed-commission, 


579. 

Beckwith, Rev. George, advocates Stod- 
dardeanism, 282, 286. 

Beecher, Rev. Edward, 567, 569. 

Beecher, Rev. Lyman, trial, 535. 

Bell, Dea. D. C., steps leading to Creed 
of 1883, 578, 579. 

Bellamy, Rev. Joseph, of Bethlem, biog. 
note, 285; opposes the Half-Way 
Covenant, 286. 

Bible. See Scriptures. 

Billet, Arthur, 28. 

Bilson, Thomas, bishop, urges juve dz- 
vino Episcopacy, 78, 98. 

Bishop, Rev. Nelson, 566. 

Blackburn, Rev. John, 544. 

Blakeman, Rev. Adam, approves Hook- 
er’s Principles, 148; opposes Half- 
Way Covenant, 272. 

Blatchford, Rev. Samuel, Plan of Union, 

29, 530. 

Blinman, Rev. Rich., of New London, 
sent to Assembly of 1657, 259. 

Bond, Rev. John, Cong. in West. As- 
sembly, 342. 

Boston, Assembly of 1657 ee Assem- 
bly) Ministerial. 

Boston Church, strongly Pugteat 99 ; 
becomes acquainted with Plymouth 
practices, 126; 127% -ofganigaios 
effected, 128, 129; persuaded with 
difficulty to join in Cambridge Synod, 
171-174; its members in legislature 
disapprove the Platform, 187, 188; 
advice regarding Baptism, 251, 255; 
guarded approval of Synod of 1679, 
416. 

Boston Council of 1865 (see also Burial 
Hill Declaration, and Statement of 
Principles), steps leading to, 553-555; 


INDEX 


preliminary committees on Decl. of 
Faith and Statement of Polity, 555; 
meeting and officers of Council, 555, 
556; discussions leading to Burial 
Hill Declaration, 556-565; text of 
Decl., 562-564; discussions leading 
to Statement of Polity, 565-568; text 
of Statement, 567; a large com. ona 
Platform appointed, 568, 569; its 
work, 569. 

Boston fires, 1676, 1679, 412. 

Boston Platform, 569, 578. 

Boston Synod, of 1662 (see Synod of 
1662). 

Boston, Winthrop’s company arrives, 
125, 129. 

Bradford, Gov. William, Mayflower 
compact, 88; Gott’s letter to him, 103; 
at Salem, 105; letter of Winslow and 
Fuller to, 126; defeats Vassall’s peti- 
tion, 164; at Cambridge Synod, 182. 

Bradstreet, Gov. Simon, Synod of 1679, 


eL7, 

Bradstreet, Rev. Simon, Brattle Church 
quarrel, 476, 478. 

Braintree church, consulted regarding 
the Half-Way Covenant, 255. 

Brand, Rev. James, steps toward the 
Creed of 1883, 578. 

Brattle Church, Boston, story of, 472- 


477. 

Brattle, Thomas, liberal views, 472; 
changes desired, 474; founding of 
Brattle Ch., 476; denounced by the 
Mathers, 4709. 

Brattle, Rev. William, liberal views, 472; 
Brattle Ch., 476, 478. 

Brewster, William, biog. note, 84; 
Scrooby ch. meets in his house, 83; 
chosen ruling elder, 84; partially 
Erastian, 86, 90, 91; part of Leyden 
ch. emigrates to Plymouth under his 
lead, 87; letter to, 126; views on in- 
fant-membership, 246. 

Bridge, Rev. William, quoted, 310; in 
Westminster Assembly, 137, 342; 
the Apol. Nar.”, 343; ‘* Remon- 
strance,” 344; declines chaplaincy of 
Council of State, 345; letter to, 347; 
letter of, 348; at Savoy Synod, 349. 

Bright, Rev. Francis, sent as minister 
to Salem, 102. 

Bristol, A. G., 538. 

Brockway, Hon. J. H., 569. 

Browne, Rev. Edmund, invited to a 
** Synod” at Hartford, 1666, 273. 

Browne, Robert, biog. sketch, 8; birth 
and education, 8; under Puritan influ- 
ences, 8; progress from Puritanism to 
Congregationalism, 9; reasons for the 
change, 9, 10, 12; organizes a church, 
10; emigrates with church to Middel- 


587 


burg, 11; his publications, 11; his 
break-down, 12; theory of relations 
of church and state, 12, 13; his sys- 
tem, 13-15; how far due to Anabap- 
tist influence, 15-17; his originality, 
17; a democrat in church and state, 
14, 15; selections from his writings, 
18-27, 

Brownism, more democratic than Bar- 
rowism, I4, 15, 32. 

Buck, Daniel, 116. 

Buckingham, Rev. Stephen, 509. 

Buckingham, Rev. Thos., foundation of 
Yale, 497; creed proposition, 408 ; 
moderator of Saybrook Synod, 502. 

Buckingham, Gov. W. A., moderator 
Council of 1865, 556. 

Buddington, Rev. W. I., at Oberlin 
Council, 572; paper on Unity of the 
Church, 574. 

Bulkeley, Rev. Edward, petition for 
Synod, 1679, 413; duties at Synod,418. 

Bulkeley, Rev. Peter, at Synod of 1637, 
133; Assembly of 1657, 258. 

Bulkley, Rev. Gershom,of Wethersfield, 
favors ‘* Assembly” of 1667, 276; ap- 
pointed by Conn. Court to settle Hali- 
Way quarrel, 276. 

Burgess, Rev. Anthony, Cong. in West. 
Assembly, 342. 

Burghley, Lord, aids Browne, 8, 12. 

Burial, ministers not to bury, ‘‘ Points 
of Difference,” 1603, 79; early N. E. 
usage, 79. 

Burial Hill Declaration, text, 562-564; 
literature, 553; steps leading to Coun- 
cil of 1865, 553-555; preliminary com. 
on, 555; report of com., 556-558; 
new com. appointed, 558, 559; its re- 
port and ‘‘ Calvinism” clause, 559; 
debate, 559, 560; the Council at Burial 
Hill, 560, 561; Mr. Quint presents a 
modified Declaration, 561; the Burial 
Hill Declaration adopted, 562; char- 
acter, 564, 565; limitations, 565, 577. 

Burr, Rev, HF o566; 

Burrage, Henry S., paper on the Ana- 
baptists,.2, 4. 

Burroughes, Rey. Jeremiah, Cong. in 
West. Assembly, 137, 342-344; quo- 
ted at Boston, 172; use of Lord’s 
Prayer, 474. 

Burt, Rev. David, 569. 

Burton, Thomas, attempts to alter ch. 
and state in Mass., 164-181. 


Gye E, views on church polity, 
2 


Cambridge, Hooker’s company settle at, 
150; emigration from, 152. 

Cambridge, Ministerial Convention at, 
1643, 138; Convention of 1645, I41. 


588 


Cambridge, Ministerial Association, 470- 
472; sends out Convention letter of 
1704, 484, 485; sends out Proposals 
of 1705, 490. 


Cambridge Platform, text, 193-237; 
editions, 157, 158; literature, 158, 
159; members appointed to draft 


tentative platforms, 175; the Platform 
adopted, 184; its preface, 184, 185; 
its character, 185, 186; points of criti- 
cism, 188; approved by Synod of 
1679, 418, 425. 

Cambridge Synod, causes leading to; 
Presbyterian dominance in Eng., 
159; unrest in ch. and state in N. E. 
160; at Hingham, 160-163; Vassall’s 
efforts for toleration, 163, 164; at- 
tempts of Child and his friends, 164— 
160," TOB 3 W71e" 2170-1 ke eeellogs 
grievances regarding baptism and ch. 
membership, 165; these difficulties 
lead to call of Synod by Mass. Court, 
167, 168; text of call, 168-171; pur- 
pose of Court, 171 ; churches of other 
colonies summoned, 170; expenses, 
how met, 170; four churches unrep- 
resented, 171; reluctance of Boston 
church, its reasons, 171, 172; scruples 
overcome, 172-174; first session of 
Synod, 1646, 173; churches in possi- 
ble attendance, 174; report on powers 
of magistrates, 175; appointments to 
draft a Platform, 175; first session 
adjourns, 175; downfall of Presby- 
terianism in Eng., relieves most press- 
ing questions, 175-181; effect on 
work of Synod, 181; brief second ses- 
sion, 1647, attendance, sermon, ad- 
journment, 182; directed by Mass. 
Court to prepare Confession of Faith, 
182, 183; the creed commission, 183; 
final session, 183-185 ; Allin preaches 
and Tompson kills a snake, 183, 184; 
Platform adopted, 184; its Preface, 
184, 185; doctrinal parts of West. 
Confession adopted, 185, I94, 195; 
adjournment, 185; results, 185-188. 

Campbell, Douglas, claims for Dutch 
Anabaptist influence on early Cong., 
7, 15-17. 

Canons, issued against Puritans and 
Separatists by Convocation of Canter- 
bury, 1603, 76, 77. 

Cape Ann, settled, 100. 

Carpenter, Hon. Elisha, 572. 

Carpenter, Dea. Philo, 556. 

Carter, Rev. William, Cong. in West. 
Assembly, 137, 342. 

Cartwright, Thomas, Puritan influence 
at Cambridge, 8; quoted, 56. 

Carver, John, deacon, agent of Leyden 
ch. in London, 85. 


INDEX 


Caryl, Rev. Joseph, Cong. in West. 
Assembly, 342; beneficed under Com- 
monwealth, 345 ; at Savoy Synod, 349. 

Chamberlain, Hon. Mellen, 153. 

Chapin, Rev. A. L., steps toward the 
Creed of 1883, 578, 579. 

Chapman, Robert, 502. 

Charles. II., orders Mass. to allow the 
use of the Prayer Book, 271; sends. 
Commissioners to New England, 271. 

Charlestown church, covenant of 1632, 
116; organized, 130. 

Chauncy, Pres. Charles, biog. note, 266; 
opposes Half-Way Covenant views at 
Camb. Synod, 181, 253; at Assembly 
of 1657, 258; leader of opposition to 
majority in and after Synod of 1662, 
265-269 ; inconsistent position, 268. 

Chauncy, Rev. Charles, of Stratfield, at 
Saybrook Synod, 502; reception of 
Platform, 509, 510. 

Chauncy, Rev. Charles, of Boston, ad- 
vocates Stoddardeanism, 282. 

Chauncy, Rev. Isaac, instrumental in 
collapse of Union based on Heads of 
Agreement, 451, 452. 

Chauncy, Rev. Israel, foundation of Yale, 
497. 

Cheever, Rev. Samuel, petition for 
Synod, 1679, 413; conservative, 407 ; 
signs Proposals of 1705, 490. 

Child, Dr. Robt., attempt to alter state 
and ch. in Mass., 164-166, 168, 171, 
176-181, 247; his petition, 164, 165 ; 
real grievances, 165 ; threatens appeal 
to Parliament, 165 ; Court lays petition 
on table, 166; further steps, 176; 
arrested and fined, 178; in England, 
179 ; completely defeated, 181. 

Children, Baptized, under what church- 
discipline, 293, 294. 

Christ, Headship of, Browne’s views, 13, 
I4, 20, 21% Conf. of (88q.ceaem 
Cambridge Platform, 217 ; Savoy Dec- 
laration, 403; English Decl., 551; 
Prin. of 1865, 567; Creed. of 1883; 
581. 

Person and work of, Conf. of 
1596, 61-63; Salem Direction, 1665, 
120; Windsor creed, 155; Savoy 
Decl., 375-377 ; English Decl., 1833, 
549, 550; Burial Hill Decl., 563, 564; 
Creed of 1883, 580, 581. 

Church, autonomous, Conf. of 1596, 66 ; 
‘* Points of Differences,” 78 ; Hooker’s 
principles, 144 ; Windsor creed, 155 ; 
Cambridge Platform, 204-208 ; Savoy 
Decl., 403, 404; Heads of Agree- 
ment, 447, 457, 458; Englisa Decl., 
551, 552; Principles of 1865, 568; 
Creed of 1883, 581. 

Based on Covenant (see Covenant). 


INDEX 


Communion of (see Communion of 
Chhs.). 

Discipline of (see Discipline). 

Jacob’s definition of, 78. 

Membership of, theories of Prot. re- 
formers, 3; of Puritans, 3; the Ana- 
baptist, 3-5 ; Browne asserts regener- 
ate membership, 13, 18; also Barrowe 
moe the London’ ch.; 335 Conf: of 
1596, 64, 71; ‘‘ Points of Difference,” 
78; doctrinal tests in early N. E., 
TOO. 107.865 > ‘* relations,” 107,473; 
478 ; votes of ch. necessary in admis- 
sion, 138; ‘‘visible saints” only fit 


members, 143; Serious grievances re- . 


garding membership lead to call of 
Cambridge Synod, 165, 167-171, 177; 
views of Camb. Platform, 205-207, 
221-224; twofold theory of early N. 
E. regarding membership gives rise to 
Half-Way Covenant, 246, 347 (see 
Half-Way Covenant); viewsof Assem- 
bly of 1657, 298, 299; Savoy Decl., 
404; Heads of Agreement, 457; Eng- 
lish Decl., 1833, 551, 552 ;-Creed of 
1883, 581. 

Officers of, choice and_ duties, 
among Anabaptists, 5; Browne's 
views, 13, 14, 25; Conf. of 1589, 34-38; 
Cong. of 1596, 65, 66, 69, 70; ‘* Points 
of Difference,” 78, 79; Cambridge 
Platform, 210-220 ; Savoy Decl., 404; 
English Decl., 1833, 551; Creed of 
1883, 581 ; notessential to existence of 
hy 143°; powerin early” N.E., 135: 

Powers of, Cambridge Platform, 
217-220. 

Church of England, why criticised by 
early Cong., 12, 13, 45-47, 50-58, 67- 
69, 77-80; salvation within it held 
doubtful, 69 ; how reformable, 13, 69- 
71, 138; Separatists desire civil autho- 
rities to end it, 47, 69, 71, 80; Eras- 
tian under Elizabeth, 77; growth in 
it of jure divino Episcopal theories, 
78, 98 ; doctrinal Articles of approved 
by Cong., 89, 462. 

Churches, list of those in N. E. in 1646, 
174. 

Civil Officers, see Magistrates. 

Clap, Capt. Roger, account of origin of 
Dorchester-Windsor ch., 149, 150. 

Clapham, Henoch, works quoted, 28. 

fete KEV? [69-491 °. 

Clark, Rev. Thomas, petition for Synod, 
1679, 413. 

Clyfton, Richard, minister of the Scrooby 
ch., 83; remains at Amsterdam, 83, 84. 

Cobbett, Rev. Thomas, 256 ; appointed 
to prepare creed, 183; Assembly of 
1657, 258; labors at Synod of 1679, 


413, 417, 418. 


589 


Coddington, William, 126. 
Coe, Rev. D. B., on creed-commission, 


Coleman, Rev. Thomas, Erastian in 
West. Assembly, 342. 

Collins, Rev. Nath., Middletown, 
preaches, Synod of 1679, 418. 

Colman, Rev. Benj., call to Brattle Ch., 
476, 477; controversy with the 
Mathers, 478, 479; declines pres. of 
Harvard, 482; becomes a conservative, 
483; circular letter, 484. 

Commission Creed of 1883, text, 580- 
582; steps leading to, 577-579; the 
Commission, 579; character, 582. 

Commissioners for Plantations, order for 
toleration, 172 ; receive Gorton’s Com- 
plaint, 176, 179; change of face, 180, 
1ST. 

Commissioners, royal, sent to N. E., 
1664, 271. 

Commissioners of the United Colonies, 
vote regarding future call of Synods, 
275, 

Communion of Churches, early N. E. 
opinions, 310, 311; Cambridge Plat- 
form, 229-233 ; discussed and recom- 
mended at Synod of 1662, 264, 268, 
337-339; Savoy Decl., 408; Heads 
of Agreement, 460; English Decl., 
1833, 552; Principles of 1865, 568; 
Oberlin Decl., 575. 

Conant, Roger, Puritan founder of Salem, 
100. 

Concord, church unrepresented at Cam- 
bridge Synod, 171. 

Conferences, regular meetings recom- 
mended by Convention of 1643, 138; 
modern nature of, 515. 

Confession of 1589, text, 33-40; author- 
ship, 29; character, 30-32. 

Confession of 1596, text, 49-74; com- 
position and authors, 43, 44; spirit of 
preface, 44; character of the confes- 
sion, 44-48; translation into Latin, 
48; sent to James I. at his acces- 
sion, 1603, 76. 

Confession of 1680, text (Savoy Con- 
fession), 367-402; preface, 438, 439; 
causes leading to, 410-420; when 
and how adopted, 421; how used, 409, 
422; recommended in Conn., 1703, 
498 ; adopted, 1708, 500, 502, 518; 
approved in Burial Hill Decl., 562, 
505, 577. 

Confessions of Faith, in church admis- 
sions, Camb. Platform, 223; object of, 
354. 

Congregationalism, a logical outcome of 
the Reformation, 1; origin often placed 
in 1567, 7, 8; possible relationship to 
Anabaptist movements, 7, I5-17; 


Ut 


jure divino at first, 33, 35, 61, 65; 
church organized at Norwich, 1580, 
10; spread of Cong. to London and 
other towns, 29, 49; simplicity of 
early covenants, 106, 116; severe doc- 
trinal tests, 106, 107; errors lead to 
more elaborate statements, I07—-I1I5; 
N. E. Congregationalism chiefly Pur- 
itan, but moulded in polity by Sepa- 
ratist Plymouth, 102, 103, 126-131, 
134; English Puritans suspicious, 134, 
135; N. E. Cong. defended by Daven- 
Port cand Piather, 71345 19530 .ck; 
Cong. Barrowist, 135, 136; not Pres- 
byterian, 136; Ministerial Convention, 
Cambridge, 1643, disapproves of 
Presb., 137-139; Cong. criticised by 
Rutherford and other Presbyterians, 
139; defended by Hooker, 140-142; 
Hooker’s exposition, 142-148; an ad- 
vance, 142; Cong. not universally 
popular in early N. E., 137-139, 159- 
166; points criticised, 165; N. E. 
Cong. in becoming dominant neces- 
sarily becomes conservative, 166, 167; 
Cambridge Platform a jure adivino 
system, 203; many features discussed 
in Connecticut, 1667, 274. 

Why unwilling to present a definite 
form at West. Assembly, 344; powerful 
under the Commonwealth, 345; differed 
radically from Presb. on question of 
state ch., 441. 

Decentralized in XVIII Cent., 525; 
English Cong. in XVIII Cent., 542— 
544; Council of 1865 essentially 
Calvinist, 560, 561; merits of Cong., 
Burial? Hill Decl). 5638 Princi- 
ples of 1865, 567; Cong. pure democ- 
racy, 568, 583; welcomes Arminianism, 
1871, 576; conclusions from Cong. 
history, 582-584. 

Congregational martyrs, see Martyrs. 
Congregation Union, of England and 
Wales, formed, 544, 545; adopts Dec- 
laration, "545,405 >> ot scotland, 
founded, 543, 544. 
Congregationalists,  beneficed 
the Commonwealth, 345. 
Connecticut, unrest in Mass. leads to 
settlement of, 151, 152; did first set- 
tlers go as organized towns? 152, 153; 
Conn. always individual, 153. 
Connecticut Court, petitioned for larger 
baptism, action thereon, 257; over- 
tures Mass. Court, 258, 288; sends 
ministers to Assembly of 1657, 
259; lays result of Assembly 
before the churches, 262; limits 
the franchise, 1657, 263; petitioned 
by Pitkin and others for larger church 
privileges, 1664, 271, 272; favors large 


under 


xe) INDEX 


Half-Way practice, 272; calls a 
‘‘Synod” for 1667, 273; questions 
proposed for solution, 274; changes 
title to ‘‘ Assembly”; asks Mass. 
Court to call a Council of all the col- 
onies, 276; appoints a committee to 
compromise the Half-Way dispute, 
276';° the: dispute endéd)) 279, 3 the 
Hartford church allowed to divide, 
277; calls Saybrook Synod, 499, 500 ; 
approves the Platform, 507, 578; 
toleration to dissenters, 507. 

Connecticut Evangelical Magazine, 528. 

Connecticut General Association estab- 
lished, 505; Presb. feeling, 526; 
missionary enterprises undertaken, 
527; Conn. Miss. Soc. established, 
528; interchange of  represen- 
tatives with Presb. Genl. Assembly, 
528; codperation with Presb. in miss. 
enterprises, 529-538. 

Connecticut Missionary Society, estab- 
lished, 528; relations to Plan of Union, 
530; report on abrogation of Plan, 538. 

Conscience, liberty of, what was meant 
by, 1646, 190; in Savoy Decl., 388. 

Consociation (see also Conference, and 
Communion of Chhs.), word not 
originally technical, 138, 142, 147; 
planned for Mass., Proposals of 1705, 
488, 489; established in Conn., 503— 
505, 508, 509, 512; still existing, 515. 

Convention, Albany (see Albany Con- 
vention). 

Annual Ministerial, in Mass., his- 
tory, 467-469; vote aimed at Brattle 
ch., 479; circular letter, 483, 484; ap- 
proves Proposals of 1705, 490, 491. 

Ministerial, of 1643, cause and 
labors, 137-139; not a Synod, 137. 

Ministerial, of 1645, 141. 

Ministerial, of 1657, 257-261, 288— 
300. 

Of Cong. Churches of Northwest, 
554. 

Cooke, Rev. Parsons, 158. 

Cooke, Rev. Samuel, 510. 

Cooley, Rev. Timothy, 158. 

Coppin, John, Cong. martyr, II, 52. 

Cordley, Rev. Richard, 569, 579. 

Cotton, Rev. John, biog. note, 184; or- 
dination at Boston, 130; moderator at 
Cambridge, 1643, 138; offered election 
to West. Assembly, 137; his ‘* Way of 
the Churches,” and. °° Keyes; aiaae 
140; urges Boston ch. to share in 
Camb. Synod, 173; appointed by 
Cambridge Synod to draught Platform, 
175; writes the preface) 284.aoee 
appointed to prepare a creed, 183; 
views on Baptism and Half-Way 
Covenant, 250-254, 305, 306; om 


INDEX 


communion of chs., 310; catechism, 
113; statement regarding Mather’s 
foe Ft QOuest.,” 135) 
Councils (see Synod). 
Standing (see Consociation). 
Boston, 1865 (see Boston Council). 
National (see National Council). 
Covenant, basis of church, Browne’s 
views, 18-20; ‘‘ Points of Difference,” 
78; Jacob’s views, 78; Hooker’s views, 
143; Windsor creed, 155; Cambridge 
Platform, 207-209; Heads of Agree- 
ment, 457; early N. E. covenants 
simple, 106, 116; renewal enjoined, 
Synod of 1679, 435; Texts of, London 
eh, tO; Scrooby ch., 83; Salem ch., 
116-118, 121; Jacob’s ch., 116; Bos- 
ton cn. .3t- Charlestown ch., 116; 
Hartford ch., 121; Windsor ch., 156. 
Half-Way (see Half-Way Covenant). 
Scotch, adopted by Parl., 130. 
Covenant, divine, doctrine of, Savoy 
Declaration, 374, 375; English Decl., 


549. 

Cradock, Matthew, first gov. of Mass. 
Company, 124. 

Creation, doctrine of, Savoy Decl., 372 ; 
Eng. Decl., 549; Creed of 1883, 580. 

Creed, the Commission, see Commission 
Creed of 1883. 

Creed-commission, appointed by Mass. 
Court, 1647, 183; of 1883, 570. 

Crisp, Rev. Tobias, commotion caused 
by his writings, 450-452. 

Crocker, Rev. Zebulon, quoted, 532. 

Cromwell, Oliver, in sympathy with 
Cong., 137, 343-345; consents to sum- 


mons of Savoy Synod, 346; other, 


references, 180, 444; death, 348. 
Cromwell, Richard, 348, 350, 352, 444. 
Crossman, Rev. Sam., Savoy Synod, 348. 
Cullick, John, the Half-Way Covenant, 

257. 

Cumberland and Westmoreland, Union 

agreement in, 442; text, 453, 454. 
Cumming, Rev. Alex., Boston, 409. 
Currier, Warren, 569. 

Cushman, Robt., agent of Leyden ch. 

in London, 85. 


AND, John, attempts to alter ch. 
and state in Mass., 164-181. 
Danforth, Rev. John, circular letter of 
1704, 484; signs Proposals of 1705, 

499. 

Davenport, Rev. John, of New Haven, 
answers ‘‘ Nine Positions,” 134; de- 
clines election to West. Assembly, 137, 
159; views on Baptism, 250; leads 
New Haven in opposition to Assem- 
bly of 1657, 259-261; reports state of 
Conn. chs., 262; writes against ma- 


591 


jority of Synod of 1662, 267, 269; in- 
fluence on Hugh Peter, 110; approves 
Hooker’s Principles, 148. 

Davenport, Rev. John, of Stratford, 
creed proposition, 1703, 498; at Say- 
brook Synod, 502; reception of Plat- 
form, 509. 

Davies hevan |2 G., 560. 

Davis, Hon. Woodbury, 569. 

Davison, Wm., patron of Brewster, 84. 

Deacons, character and duties, Browne’s 
views, 22; Conf. of 1589, 36, 37; 
chosen by each church, ‘‘ Points of 
Difference,” 78; life office in Leyden- 
Plymouth ch., 91; duties of office, 
Camb. Platform, 213; concerned with 
minister’s maintenance, 221; Savoy 
Declaration, 404, 405; Heads of 
Agreement, 461; English Decl., 551. 

Declaration, Savoy (see Savoy Synod). 
Oberlin (see Oberlin Declaration). 
English, of 1833 (see English Decla- 
ration). 

Decrees, divine, doctrine stated in Conf. 
of 1596, 59, 60; in Savoy Declaration, 
370-372; English Decl., 550; Creed 
of 1883, 580. 

Dedham church, consulted regarding the 
Half-Way Covenant, 255. 

Degrees, Theological, denounced, 80. 

Deists, 521. 

Dennen, Rev. S. R., steps leading to 
Creed of 1883, 578, 579. 

Dennis, Wm., Cong. martyr, 52. 

Devotion, Rev. Ebenezer, Scotland, 
Conn., advocates Stoddardeanism, 282. 

Dexter, Rev. H. M., scribe of Council 
of 1865, 556; preparations for Na- 
tional Council, 570; on creed-commis- 
sion, 1880, 579; investigations regard- 
ing Browne, 8; denies Browne’s in- 
debtedness to Anabaptists, 15-17; 
views on Salem symbols, 97; views on 
Proposals of 1705, 491; theory of 
ministerial standing similar to that of 
Hooker, 143. 

Discipline, how administered, Conf. of 
1589, 38-40; lodged in the whole con- 
gregation, Conf. of 1596, 66; ‘* Points 
of Difference,’ 1603, 79, 80; votes of 
church necessary, Convention of 1643, 
138 ; lodged in the church, Hooker’s 
principles, 144, 145; how adminis- 
tered, Camb. Platform, 219, 220, 227- 
229; Savoy Decl., 406, 407; Heads 
of Agreement, 459; English Decl., 
1833, 551, 552. 

Doctrinal tests, see Church-membership. 

Doddridge, Rev. Philip, 543. 

Dorchester (Eng.) Fishing Company, 
100. 

Dorchester (Mass.), settled, 125, 150; 


592 


Church, organized, 125, 149; minis- 
ters of, 125, 240, 1505 part’ 2oes.to 
Windsor, Conn., 152, 153; case of 
baptism of grandchild, 250; discus- 
sion of Half-Way Covenant, 255; ref- 
ormation sought after Synod of 1679, 
420. 

Drury, Dea. 5. F., 556. 

Dudley, Gov. Joseph, character, 493, 494. 

Dudley, Gov. Thomas, 124; biog. note, 
128. 

““Dueoripht of » Presbyteries,”” (by 3. 
Rutherford, 139, 140; answered by 
Hooker, 140-142. 

Dunster, Pres. Henry, Baptist views, 169. 

Dutch emigrants in England, 6, 7. 

Dutton; Rev. SS. W.-S.,)at ‘Council of 
1865, 560. 

Dwinell, Rev. I. E., 572. 


rept Lieut. Anthony, military quar- 
rel at Hingham, 1645, 160-163. 

Eaton, Gov. Theophilus, letter opposing 
Assembly of 1657, 260. 

Eddy, Rev. Zachary, 567, 579. 

Edwards, Rev. Jonathan, biog. note, 283; 
practices Stoddardeanism, 283; theo- 
logic views lead him to oppose Half- 
Way Covenant, 283-285 (see also 525). 

Edwards, Rev. Jona., Jr., biog. note, 
529; influence in forming Plax of 
Union, 529, 530. 

Edwards, Rev. Timothy, 508. 

Elders, Ruling, character, appointment, 
and duties, Browne’s view of, 22; 
Conf. of 1589, 36, 37; chosen by each 
ch. Points.o1 Ditferenice;? 1603; 753 
life office in Leyden-Plymouth ch., 91; 
must be able to teach, 91; duties of 


the office, Camb. Platform, 212, 213; - 


why early abandoned, 212; Savoy 
Declaration, 404; doubtful about, 
Heads of Agreement, 448, 460. 

Eldridge, Rev. Jos., on creed committee, 
Council of 1865, 558; in debate on 
Polity, 567. 

Election, doctrine of (see Decrees). 

Eliot, Rev. John, teaches school with 
Hooker, 140; sermon before Cam- 
bridge Synod, 182; Half-Way Cove- 
nant views, 254; at Synod of 1679, 
413, 417, 418. 

Eliot, Rev. Joseph of Guilford, appoint- 
ed by Conn. Court to consider Half- 
Way dispute, 276, 277. 

Elizabeth, Anabaptist persecution under, 
2; circulation of Browne’s books for- 
bidden, II. 

Emerson, Rev. Wm., of Boston, 123. 

Emerson, R. W., 123. 

Emigration from England to New Eng- 
land, extent, 132. 


INDEX 


Emmons, Rev. Nathaniel, of Franklin, 
opposes Half-Way Covenant, 287. 
Endicott, John, settles at Salem, 1628, 
101; induced by Fuller to look with 
favor on the Plymouth polity, 102, 
103; appoints day for choice of Salem 
ministers, 103, 104; aids Fuller in 
commending Plymouth polity to Win- 

throp’s company, 126. 

English Declaration of 1833, text, 548— 
552; literature, 542; steps leading to, 
542-545; written by Geo. Redford, 
545; adopted by Cong. Union, 545, 
546; explanatory letter, 546; how far 
now representative, 547. 

Episcopacy, efforts to introduce into 
Mass., 412. 


PaeiseEuLP, Prof. J. H., on creed 
com., Council of 1865, 559; com. 
on Platform, 568; creed com., 1880, 


579- 

Fairfield County, Conn., interpretation 
of Saybrook Platform, 509, 510. 

Faith, doctrine of, Savoy Declaration, 
381; English Decl., 550. 

Fall, doctrine of, Savoy Declaration, 373, 
374; English Decl., 549; Creed of 
1883, 580. 

Felt, Rev. J. B., views regarding the 
Salem symbols, 95, 96. 

Finch, Asahel, 569. 

Firmin, Rev. Giles, 290. 

Fisher, Capt. Daniel, in Synod of 1679, 
418, 419. 

Fisher; Prof: G. P., prelim. ‘comiaga 
Decl. of Faith, 1865, 555-558; com. 
on a Platform, 568; on creed-commis- 
sion, 1880. 

Fiske, Rev. D. T., at Oberlin Council, 
572. 

Fiske, Rev. John, and Salem records, 93. 

Fiske, Rev. John O., chairman second 
com. on Decl: of Faith, 1865, 558: 
report, 559. 

Fiske, Rev. Moses, petition for Synod, 
1679, 413. 

Fitch, Rev. James, of Saybrook and 
Norwich, approves Hooker’s Princi- 
ples, 148; appointed by Conn. Court 
to settle Half-Way dispute, 276, 277. 

Fitz, Richard, church at London, 1567, 7. 

Flavel, Rev. John, instrumental in pro- 
moting Union on basis of Heads of 
Agreement, 445, 446. 

Flynt, Rev. Josiah, petition for Synod. 
1679, 413; on creed committee, 419. 
Forbes, Rev. James, at Savoy Synod, 

349. 

Fowle, Thos., attempts to alter ch. and 
state in Mass., 164-181. 

Foxcroft, Rev. Thos., of Boston, 123. 


INDEX 


Franchise, scanty bestowal in Mass. and 
Plymouth, 165. 
Freeman, Rev. Jona., 529. 

Free-Will, doctrine of, Savoy Declara- 
tion, 377, 378; creed of 1883, 580. 
Fuller, Dr. Samuel, dea. of Plym. ch., 
at Salem, 101; brings knowledge of 
Plymouth ch. practices, 101, 102; in- 
strumental in making N. E. polity 
Separatist, 102, 126, 127; ministers to 
Winthrop’s company, 126; consulted 
regarding its spiritual necessities, 127; 
letters to Bradford, 126, 128; reports 
Warham’s views on ch. membership, 

150. 

Future state, doctrine of, Savoy Decla- 
ration, 400-402; English Decl., 551; 
Creed of 1883, 582. 


AGER, William, deacon at Boston, 
129. 

Gainsborough, ch. organized 1602, 82; 
divides, 1606, 83; part goes to Am- 
sterdam with Smyth, 83. 

Gale, Rev. Nahum, 558. 

Gerrish, Rev. Jos., conservative, 467; 
circular letter, 1704, 484; signs Pyro- 
posals of 1705, 490. 

Gerrits, Lubbert, Anabaptist confession, 
4-6. 

Gifford, Rev. George, Puritan opponent 
of Cong., 54, 57. 

Gilbert, Rev. Thos., Savoy Synod, 348. 

Glover, Rev. Pelatiah, invited to a *‘ Sy- 
nod” at Hartford, 273. 

God, nature of, defined in Conf. of 1596, 
Seed eoalem §° Direction;” 1665, 120; 
Savoy Decl., 370; English Decl., 549; 
Burial Hill Decl., 563; Creed of 1883, 


580. 
Goodell, Rev. C. L., on creed-commis- 
sion, 579. 


Goodwin, Rev. E. P., on creed-commis- 
sion, 579; does not sign result, 582. 

Goodwin, Rev. Thomas, quoted, 172, 
310; in Westminster Assembly, 137, 
gaa.. tue“ Apol, Nar.,” 343; “* Re- 
monstrance,” 344; pres. Magdalen 
Coll., 345; at Savoy Synod, 349; pre- 
sents ‘‘ Declaration ” to Richard Crom- 
well, 350. 

Goodwin, William, ruling-elder at Hart- 
ford, 141,257; removes to Hadley, 262. 

Gordon, Rev. G. A., of Boston, 409. 

Gorges, Sir Ferd., settlements and rights 
in Mass., 99, IOI. 

Gorton, Samuei, dispute with Mass. au- 
thorities, 175, 176, 179, 181. 

Gott, Charles, letter to Bradford describ- 
ing choice and ordination of ministers 
at Salem, 103, 104. 


593 


Green, Rev. Jacob, of Hanover, apposes 
Half-Way Covenant, 286. 

Green, Samuel, printer of Camb. Plat- 
form, 193. 

Green, Rev. William, Cong. in West. 
Assembly, 342. 

Greene, John, contest with Mass. author- 
ities, 175-181. 

Greenham, Rev. Richard, Puritan friend 
and teacher of Browne, 9. 

Greenhill, Rev. William, Cong. in West. 
Assembly, 137, 342; at Savoy Synod, 


349- 

Greenwood, John, biog. note, 30; con- 
nection with the confession of 1589, 
29; teacher of London ch., 29; mar- 
tyrdom, 30, 41, 49, 52. 

Griffith, Rev. Geo., summons of Savoy 
Synod, 347; scribe of Savoy Synod, 
- 349; in discussion between Presb. and 
Cong., 451. 

Guernsey, Rev. Jesse, 566. 

Gulliver, Rev. J. P., chairman com. on 
Polity, Council of 1865, 566; in de- 
bate, 567; com. on a Platform, 568. 


ADLEY, Mass., settled, 262. 
Hale, Rev. John, petition for Sy- 
nod, 1670, 413. 

Half-Way Covenant, general discussion 
of, 238-339; literature of controversy, 
238-244; extracts from Result of 1657, 
288-300; Result of 1662, 301-339; 
question religious, not political, 244, 
245, 256; grew out of state of N. E. 
society and inconsistent theories of ch 
membership, 244-247; severe experi 
ential tests natural to first N. E. gen- 
eration, 245; unnatural to second, 247; 
yet second generation ch. members, 
246; what should be done with their 
children, two possible radical solutions, 
247-249; the out-come a compromise, 
249, 250; why evil, 250. Progress of 
thought, views of N. E. divines, 250— 
254, 305-310; baptism of grandchil- 
dren, 250, 251; a main question at the 
Cambridge Synod, but left unsolved, 
168-171, 181, 252; ministers more 
favorable than laymen, 254; agitated 
as a practical issue at Salem, Dorches- 
ter, and Ipswich, 255, 256; first prac- 
ticed at Ipswich, 256; debated in Con- 
necticut, 256-259; movement did not 
begin in Hartford, 256, 257; petitions 
to Legislature and action thereon, 257; 
call of a Ministerial Assembly by Mass. 
Court, 258; action of several colonies, 
259-261; meeting and work (1657), 
261; extracts from result, 288-300; 
Windsor church begins practice, 262: 


594 INDEX 


Trumbull’s error, 262. Question still 
unsettled, 262, 263; Mass. Court calls 
a Synod, 263, 264; sessions and work, 
265-268; Half-Way view adopted, 267, 
268; division of sentiment in Mass., 
270; continued agitation in Conn., 
270-277; Court favors Half-Way prac- 
tice, 272; protests and divisions, 272, 
273; Conn. Court tries to secure peace, 
273-278; dispute ends in toleration, 
277,278. Later history of usage, 278-— 
287; lowering of Half-Way ideals and 


erature, 440, 441; union efforts under 
the Commonwealth, 442; renewed at- 
tempts after Restoration, 443; leaders 
in union, 444-446; educational fund 
established, 445; Union formed, 446; 
spread in England, 446. 

The ‘‘ Heads” essentially Congre- 
gational, 446-448; C. Mather declares. 
them an adequate New England sym- 
bol, 448; adopted in Conn. 1708, 449, 
501-503; their disuse and collapse of 
the Union in England, 449-452. 


cheapening of ordinance, 278, 2709, 
(see also Stoddardeanism); the ‘‘ Great 
Awakening ” introduces a type of the- 
ology inconsistent with Half-Way prin- 


Helme, Rev. Carn., Savoy Synod, 348. 

Helpers, church-officers, ‘* Points of 
Difference,’’ 79 (see Deacons), 

Hemmenway, Rev. Moses, of Wells, 


ciples, 284; Edwards and his followers 
effect its downfall, 284-287; its last 
trace, 287; form at Hartford ch., 121. 

Hammond, C. G., 556. 

Hampton Court conference, 76. 

Hanford, Rev. Thomas, of Norwalk, op- 
poses Half-Way Covenant, 272. 

Harris, Prof. Samuel, 559, 566, 568. 

Harrison, Robt.,associated with Browne, 
TOsaL as 

Hart, Rev. John, 512. 

Harts Rev; JC.5:558: 

Hart, Rev. Levi, 529. 

Hartford, unrest of Hooker’s company 


advocates Stoddardeanism, 282, 287. 


Higginson, Rev. Francis, biog. note, 


102; sent as minister to Salem, 102; 
not a Separatist, 98; chosen teacher, 
103, 104; views on infant-member- 
ship, 246; death, 108. 


Higginson, Rev. John, biog. sketch, 


112; settlement at Salem, 112; anti- 
Quaker declaration, 113; advocates 
Half-Way Covenant, 113; his ‘‘ Direc- 
tion,” of 1665, 114; approves Hook- 
er’s Principles, 148; at Synod of 1662, 
265; at Synod of 1679, 413, 418, 419; 
a conservative, 467; opposes the Brat- 


at Newtown (Cambridge), 151; settle- 
ment of Hartford, 152; Dutch claims, 
152; attempted ‘‘Synod” at, 1667, 
273-270. 

Hartford First Church, company settles 
at Mt. Wollaston, 150; then at New- 
town (Cambridge), 150; Hooker and 
Stone, pastor and teacher, 150; John 
Haynes, chief layman, 151; unrest at 
Newtown, causes, I51; transferred to 
‘Hartford, 152, 153; quarrel in Stone’s 
day (1653-9) not due to Half-Way 
Covenant, 256, 257; begins Half-Way 
practice, 262; turmoiled on baptismal 
question, 272, 273; permitted by Leg- 
islature to divide, 277; form of Half- 
Way Covenant, 1696, 121. 

Hartford Second Church, formed, 277. 
Harvard College, relations of the Math- 
ers to, 480-483. 

Haven, Prof. Joseph, 559. 

Hayden, Dea. Jabez H., baptized under 
Half-Way Covenant, 287. 

Haynes, John, gov. of Mass., 151; most 
prominent layman in company which 
settled Hartford, 151. 

Haynes, John, the younger, at Saybrook 
Synod, 1708, 502. 

Haynes, Rev. Joseph, champions Half- 
Way Covenant at Hartford, 272; 
favors ‘‘ Assembly” of 1667, 276. 
Heads of Agreement, text, 455-462; lit- 


thes; 477: 

Hingham, quarrel over military election 
at, 1645, 160-163; church unrepre- 
sented in Camb. Synod, 171. 

Hobatty; Revie si, 57a: 

Hobart, Rev. Noah, quoted, 501. 

Hobart, Rev. Peter, of Hingham, Presb. 
views, 160; the Hingham dispute, 160- 
163; his criticisms of the government, 
162; fined, 162. 

Hoit, Dea. Samuel, 502, 509. 

Holden, Randall, contest with Mass. au- 
thorities, 175-181. 

Holmes, Dea. Samuel, scribe of Council 
of 1865, 556; preparations for per- 
manent National Council, 570-572. 

Holton, Hon. E. D., 571. 

Hooke, Rev. William, New Haven, ap- 
proves Hooker’s Principles, 148; Crom- 
well’s chaplain, 345. 

Hooker, Richard, views regarding Epis- 
copacy, 78. 

Hooker, Rev. Samuel, brings the Conn. 
‘* Assembly” of 1667 to an end, 275. 

Hooker, Rev. Thomas, biog. note, 140; 
influence on John Higginson, 102, 
112; on Hugh Peter, 110; at New- 
town (Cambridge), 150; his church, 
151; emigration to Hartford, 152; de- 
clines an election to West. Assembly, 
137, 140, 159; moderator of Synod of 
1637, 133; of Ministerial Convention 


INDEX 


of 1643, 138; reply to Rutherford (the 
‘Survey ’’), 140-142; extracts from, 
143-148; his Congregationalism, 142- 
148; not a Consociationist, 142, 147; 
views on ministerial standing, 142; on 
Baptism, 250, 251; quoted by writers 
of preface to Result of Synod of 1662, 
307, 310; a democrat, 151; death, 182. 

Hopkins, Pres. Mark, 569. 

Howard, Gen. O. O., Oberlin Council, 
572. 

Howard, Rev. R. L., 571. 

Howe, Rev. John, Cromwell’s chaplain, 
345; his type of Dissent, 444; instru- 
mental in effecting Union on basis of 
Heads of Agreement, 444, 446, 452. 

Hoyt; Rev. James S., 566, 569. 

Hubbard, Rev. William, conservative 
position, 467. 

Hughes, Rev. Wm., Savoy Synod, 348. 

Humphrey, Rev. Heman, 158. 

Hurd, Rev. Philo R., 556, 571. 

Hutchinson, Mrs. Anne, the ‘‘ Antino- 
mian” dispute, 108, 133; banished, 
134. 

Hyde, Prof. J. T., on creed-commission, 


579- 

Hyde, Rev. N. A., on ‘‘ Boston Plat- 
form” committee, 569; steps leading 
to Creed of 1883, 578, 579. 


NTEMPERANCE, lamented and 
remedies proposed, Synod of 1679, 
430, 435. 
Ipswich church, first to practice Half- 
Way Covenant, 256. 


Ibe Henry, definition of a church, 
78; covenant of his ch., 116. 

James I., Anabaptist persecution under, 
2; hopes at his accession, 75-77; op- 
poses request of Leyden ch. for a 
charter, 86; gives slight verbal encour- 
agement, 87. 

James, Rev. J. A., English Declaration 
of 1833, 545. 

Johnson, Francis, biog. sketch, 41; pas- 
tor London ch., 29, 41; imprisonment, 
42; share in the Confession of 1596, 
43, 44; share in ‘‘ Points of Differ- 
ence,’ 1603, 76. 

Johnson, Isaac, biog. note, 128; instru- 
mental in forming Boston ch., 126- 
128. 

Johnson, Rev. J. G., on creed-commis- 
sion, 579. 

Johnston, Prof. Alexander, views on set- 
tlement of Conn., 153; in error re- 
garding Half-Way Covenant, 256. 

Jollie, Rev. Thomas, possible suggestion 
of Synod of 1679, 413. 


595 


Jones, Rev. John, of Fairfield, approves 
Hooker’s Principles, 148. 

Junius, Prof. Francis, of Leyden, 41. 

Justification, doctrine of, Savoy Decla- 
ration, 378, 379; Creed of 1883, 581. 


Kes: Prof. W. S., on creed-commis- 

sion, 579; dissents from result, 582. 

Kearnie, James L., 571. 

Keller, Ludwig, theory regarding origin 
of Anabaptists, 2. 

‘* Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven,” by 
Cotton, I40. 


fe Rev. Benjamin, Business 
Com. Council of 1865, 556; Com. 
on Platform, 569. 

Ladd, Prof. G. T., on creed-commission, 


579. 

Lathrop, Rev. Joseph, West Springfield, 
advocates Stoddardeanism, 282, 287. 
Laud, Wm., archbishop, effect of his 

elevation on Puritans, 98. 

Law and Gospel, doctrines of, Savoy 
Declaration, 386-388. 

Lawrence, Prof. E. A., prelim. com. on 
Decl. of Faith, 1865, 555; report, 556- 
558; its author, 556; on new com., 
559; in debate, 560. 

Leavitt, Rev. Joshua, in debate on Decl. 
of 1865, 560; minority report on Pol- 
ity, 566, 567. 

Leeds, Rev. S. P., on creed-commission, 


579. 

Letters of Recommendation, used in 
transfer of membership, Conf. of 1596, 
45, 71. 

Leverett, Pres. John, Liberal views, 472; 
founding of Brattle Ch., 476; pres. of 
Harvard, 482. 

Leverett, Thomas, ruling elder at Bos- 
ton, 173; advice regarding baptism of 
grandchildren, 251. 

Leyden, Scrooby ch. at, 83-87; unrest 
there, 85; emigration, 87. (See also 
Scrooby.) 

Liberties, Body of, 1641, 172. 

License to Preach, see Ministerial Licen- 
sure. 

Liggett, Rev. James D., 566. 

Lightfoot, Rev. John, Erastian in West. 
Assembly, 342. 

Lines, Charles B., Oberlin Declaration, 


575. 

Linn Kev; John’ 8:,°5 32; 

Loeffs, Rev. Isaac, Savoy Synod, 348. 

London Church, first traces of Cong. in 
London, 7, 29; complete organization 
of church, 1592, 29; probable cove- 
nant, 116; its Confession of 1589, 33- 
40; by whom written, 29; character 
of Confession, 30-32; arrest of its 


590 


member, 1593, 42; emigration to Hol- 
land, 42; in Amsterdam, 43; its Con- 
fession of 1596, 49-74; by whom writ- 
ten, 43, 44; character and value, 44— 
48; ‘‘ Points of Difference,’ 1603, 77- 
80; occasion of this document, 75-77; 
turmoiled by Smyth and his Gains- 
borough flock, 83. 

Luther, views on church polity, 2. 

Lyford, Rev. John, 100. 


Nees (see also Conn. and 
Mass. Courts), authority over 
churches denied by Anabaptists, 4-6; 
rejected by Browne, 12, 13; affirmed 
by Harrison, 13; asserted in Conf. of 
1596, 69; Separatists generally desire 
them to do away with Ch. of England 
as false, 47, 71, 80; but have no au- 
thority to prevent right worship, 72; 
Salem church pledges due obedience, 
118; have power to call Synods, 167, 
168, 170; powers discussed and defined 
at Cambridge Synod, 175, 189-193, 
234-237; duty to care for ministerial 
maintenance, 221; changed views 
shown in Heads of Agreement, 461; 
and in English Declaration, 1833, 552. 

Magoun, Pres. G. F., 571. 

Manning, Rev. J. M., Boston, 409. 

Marriage, ministers not to perform mar- 
tage, Points) of: Difference?’79; 
early N. E. usage, 79; doctrine of, 
Savoy Declaration, 394. 

Martyrs, Cong., names of those executed 
or who died for their faith in conse- 
quence of imprisonment, 52. 

Marvin, Rev. E. P., 556. 

Massachusetts Company, chartered, Ior, 
124; colonists sent to Salem, IoI, 102; 
rapid growth, 124, 125; government 
transferred to N. E., 124. 

Massachusetts Court, provides minister- 
ial support, 129; banishes Williams, 
L104.) calls: frst aN. ee oyiod, 243° 
banishes Anne Hutchinson and Wheel- 
wright, 134; Hooker’s company at 
Cambridge ask to go to Conn., I51; 
composition, 162; the Hingham dis- 
pute, 160-163; resists criticisms of its 
authority and appeals made to Eng- 
land, 162; calls Cambridge Synod, 
167-171; deputies have scruples, 167, 
168; purpose of call, 171, 244; in de- 
fence of prerogatives threatened by 
Gorton and Child, 175-181; local in- 
dependence asserted, 177, 178; relig- 
ious usages defended, 177; political 
changes in Eng., 1647-8, aid Court, 
180; Court appoints a commission to 
prepare a creed for adoption by Camb. 
Synod, 183; action regarding Camb. 


INDEX 


Platform, 186-188; calls Ministerial 
Assembly of 1657, 258; calls Synod 
of 1662, 263, 264; orders its result 
printed, 269; vote regarding use of 
the Prayer-Book, 271; declines to call 
a Council on request of Conn., 1667, 
276; requested by ministers to call a 
Synod, 1679, 413; orders Synod, 415, 
416; commends result, 41g, 420; or- 
ders the Confession of 1680 printed, 
421, 422; fails to call a Synod, 1725, 
525. 

Mather, Rev. Cotton, conservative posi- 
tion, 467; relations to Harvard, 482; 
circular letter of 1704, 484; signs Pro- 
posals of 1705, 490; explanation of 
their failure, 491, 492; interest in Yale, 
496; declaration of doctrinal position 
of N. E., 106; statement of terms of 
Baptism in his day, 279, 283; testi- 
mony as to religious state of N. E. 
about 1680, 410; praise of Heads of 
Agreement, 448; account of Minister- 
ial Convention, 468. 

Mather, Rev. Eleazer, at Synod of 1662, 
265; opposes Half-Way views, 266, 
267. 

Mather, Rev. Increase, biog. note, 412; 
opposes Haif-Way views at Synod of 
1662, 265-269; later their chief advo- 
cate, 266, 270; procures summons of 
Synod of 1679, 412-414; preaches be- 
fore it, 418; on its creed com., 419; 
opposes Stoddard’s views here and 
later, 281, 282, 419; prepares result of 
Synod, 419; sermons, 419, 420; mod- 
erator of Synod, 1680, 421; writes 
preface to its Confession, 421; share 
in Union on basis of Heads of Agree- 
ment, 445-448; conservative leader of 
N. E., 466; opposes the Brattles, 475; 
his Order of the Gospel, 477, 478; ex- 
cluded from control of Harvard, 480- 
483; interest in Yale, 497; statement 
concerning Richard Mather’s XXXII 
Quest., 135; story of use of Lord’s 
Prayer, 474. 

Mather, Rev. Moses, Darien, advocates 
Stoddardeanism, 243, 282, 286; change 
of view, 243. 

Mather, Nathanael, biog. note, 288; 
publishes result of Assembly of 1657, 
261, 288. (See also 451.) 

Mather, Rev. Richard, biog. note, 184; 
sole author of ‘‘ Answer to XXXII 
Quest.,” 135, 136, 140, 289; answer 
to Herle, 140; declares Ministerial 
Convention of 1643 non-synodical, 
137; chosen by Cambridge Synod to ' 
draft Platform, 175; his form adopted, 
with modifications, 184, 224; on creed- 
com., 183; answers criticisms on 





INDEX 


Camb, Platform, 187; views on Bap- 
tism and Half-Way Covenant, 246, 
250-254; proposed to insert Half-Way 
Covenant in Camb. Platform, 224; at 
Ministerial Assembly of 1657, 258; 
drafts its result, 261; favors Half-Way 
view at Synod of 1662, 265, 266; re- 
ports result to Mass. Court, 268; de- 
fends it, 269; his death-bed exhorta- 
tion, 270. 

Mather, Rev. Samuel, trustee of Yale, 


497. 

Maverick, Rev. John, biog. note, 150, 
chosen teacher of Dorchester ch., 125, 
149, 150; character, 150. 

Maverick, Samuel, attempts to alter ch. 
and state in Mass., 164-181. 

Mayflower Compact, 1620, text, 92; 
origin and character, 81, 82, 87-89. 

Mayo, Rev. John, of Boston, at Synod 
of 1662, 265; opposes Half-Way 
views, 266. 

Neca) Mone HS. +571: 

McKenzie, Rev. Alex., on creed-com- 
mission, 579. 

McKnight, Rev. John, 530, 532. 

Mead, Prof. C. M., on creed-commis- 
sion, 579. 

Mead, Prof. Hiram, steps towards the 
Creed of 1883, 578. 

Mead, Rev. Matthew, biog. note, 444; 
instrumental in effecting Union on 
basis of Heads of Agreement, 444, 
446; sermon on Union, 440, 446; on 
committee, 452. 

Mennonites, see Anabaptists. 

Merriman, Pres. W. E., preparations 
for National Council, 571, 572. 

Middelburg, Browne’s Norwich ch. 
emigrates to, II. 

Millenary Petition, 75, 76. 

Ministers, see Church-officers, Pastor, 
and Teacher. 

Ministerial Conventions, Annual, 1643, 
1645, etc. see Convention. 

Election, shared by non-church 
members, 274, 473. 

Licensure, Heads. of Agreement, 
459; Proposals of 1705, 487; Say- 
brook Platform, 506, 516. 

Maintenance, to be voluntary, 70; 
at Boston and Watertown, 129; how 
best determined, Camb. Platform, 220, 
3a 

Standing, ministers only when 
connected with a church, 142, 143, 
145, 217. 

Mitchell, Rev. Jonathan, biog. note, 
266; Assembly of 1657, 258; leader 
of majority at Synod of 1662, 265, 
266; probable author of preface to its 

_“* Propositions,” 301; defends result 


597 


and gains Increase Mather, 269, 270; 
invited to a ‘‘Synod” at Hartford, 
og fee 

Mix, Rev. Stephen, scribe at Saybrook 
Synod, 502; establishment of system 
in Hartford Co., 508. 

Mooar, Prof. Geo., on creed-commission, 


579. 
Moody, Rev. Joshua, in Synod of 1679, 
418. 
Morse, Rev. Jedidiah, 495. 
Morton, Rev. Charles, revives Ministers” 
Meetings in N. E., 470. 
Morton, Thomas, 99. 
Moss, Rev. Joseph, 512, 513. 
Moulin, Peter du, criticises Savoy Dec- 
laration, 352. 
Moxon, Rev. Geo., Springfield, approves 
Hooker’s principles, 148. 








ATIONAL Council, formation of, 


570-572; constitution, 572-574; 
Declaration at Oberlin, 575, 576; 
criticisms and value, 576; a creed 


desired, 577, 578; creed-commission 
appointed, 1880, 579. 

National Council of 1865, see Boston 
Council of 1865. 

Naumkeag, see Salem. 

Navigation Acts, 411. 

Newark, N. J., emigration to, 273. 

Newbury, Presbyterianism in, 137, 160. 

New Haven County, Conn., interpreta- 
tion of Saybrook Platform, 511-513. 

New Haven Court, opposes Assembly of 
1657, 259-261. 

Norris, Rev. Edward, pastor at Salem, 
II1; at Cambridge Synod, 183; called 
to Assembly of 1657, 258; death, 112. 

Norton, Rev. John, sermon before Bos- 
ton ch., 1646, 173; on creed commit- 
tee, 183; Half-Way Covenant views, 
253; called to Assembly of 1657, 258; 
at Synod of 1662, 265, 267; brings 
letter from English government order- 
ing freedom of worship, 270, 271. 

Norwich, Eng., Cong. church organized 
1580, 10; part emigrates to Holland, 
II; part remains, I1, 28, 29. 

Nowell, Increase, ruling elder at Boston, 
124, 120. 

Noyes, Prof. D. J., 558. 

Noyes, Rev. James, of Newbury, Pres- 
byterian inclinations, 137, 160; Minis- 
terial Convention to consider his case, 
1643, 137-139. 

Noyes, Rev. James, of Stonington, 
trustee of Yale, 497; moderator of 
Saybrook Synod, 502. 

Noyes, Rev. Moses, at Saybrook Synod, 
502, 

Noyes, Rev. 


Nicholas, conservative 


598 
position, 467; opposes Brattle ch., 


477. 

Nye, Rev. Philip, Cong. in West. As- 
sembly, 137, 342; the ‘‘ Apologetical 
Narration,” 343; the ‘* Remon- 
strance,” 344; beneficed under Com- 
monwealth, 345; at Savoy Synod, 349; 
See alsont72 370; 


AKES, Rev. Urian, moderator of 
Synod of 1679, 417; other duties, 
418; on creed committee, 419. 

Oaths, attitude of Anabaptists regard- 
ing, 4, 6; of Browne, 24; of Savoy 
Declaration, 391. 

Oberlin Declaration, text, 575, 576; oc- 
casion, 570-572, 574; nature, 576. 
Old South ch., Boston, use made of 

Confession of 1680, 409, 422. 

Oliver, Thomas, ruling-elder at Boston, 
173; advice regarding baptism of 
grandchildren, 251. 

Ordination, an installation based on 
previous election, Hooker’s Principles, 
145; Cambridge Platform, 215-217; 
Savoy Declaration, 405. 

Owen, Rev. John, biog. note, 352; 

_ appointments under Commonwealth, 
345; at Savoy Synod, 349; probable 
author of Savoy preface, 352; replies 
to critics, 352. 


PaiMeE Rev. Anthony, Savoy Sy- 
nod, 348. 

Palmer, Rev. Thomas, Savoy Synod, 348. 

Palmer, Rev. Ray, 570. 

Parish system, 274. 

Park, Prof. E. A., on second creed com. 
of Council of 1865, 559; his affirma- 
tion of Calvinism, 560; on com. on 
Polity, 566; introduces the Statement 
of Polity, 567; on com. on Platform, 
568. 

Parker, Rev. Thomas, of Newbury, 
Presbyterian inclinations, 137, 160; 
consequent Ministerial Convention, 
1643, 137-139; at Synod of 1662, 
265-267. 

Parker, Dea. William, 502. 

Partridge, Rev. Ralph, of Duxbury, 
drafts Platform for Cambridge Synod 
(not adopted), 175, 184; Half-Way 
Covenant views, 253. 

Pastor, character and duties, Browne’s 
views, 22; Confession of 1589, 35, 36; 
“Points of Difference,” 78; how 
chosen at Salem, 103, 104; office de- 
fined, Cambridge Platform, 211; 
Savoy Decl., 404, 405; Heads of 
Agreement, 458, 459; English Decl., 
1833, 551; Principles of 1865, 568. 


INDEX 


Patton, Rev. W. W., at Council of 1865, 
560, 562; preparation for National 
Council, 570, 571; on creed-commis- 
sion, 579. 

Pemberton, Rev. Ebenezer, liberal views, 
472; Brattle ch., 476; circular letter, 
484; signs Proposals of 1705, 490. 

Penry, John, Cong. martyr, 52. 

Perseverance, doctrine of, Savoy Declar- 
ation, 384; English Decl., 550. 

Peter, Rev. Hugh, biog. sketch, 110; 
prosperity of Salem ch. under his 
ministry, 111; end of ministry, I11; 
publishes N. E. treatises on Polity, 
134; chaplain, 345. 

Philip, Indian chief, 411. 

Philip’s war, 411, 412. 

Phillips, Rev. Geo., of Watertown, 
maintenance, 129; views on Episcopal 
ordination, 99; on church-member- 
ship, 251, 252; on the status of chil- 
dren of members, 307. 

Phillips, Rev. Samuel, petition for Sy- 
nod, 1679, 413. 

Pierpont, Rev. James, foundation of 
Yale, 497; creed proposition, 498}. at 
Saybrook Synod, 502; drafts Plat- 
form, 501; reception in New Haven 
County, 511-513. 

Pierson, Rev. Abraham, of Branford, 
opposition to Half-Way Covenant, 
7a ee 

Pierson, Rev. Abraham, of Killing- 
worth, foundation of Yale, 497; 
proposition for a creed, 498. 

Pitkin, William, petitions Conn. Court 
for enlarged church rights, 271. 

Plan of Union, text, 530, 531; litera- 
ture, 524; circumstances leading to, 
524-530; formed, 529, 530, 532; 
workings, 532-534; Presbyterian dis- 
satisfaction, 534, 535; repudiated by 
‘Old School,” 536, 537; abrogated 
by Albany Convention, 539, 540; 
value, 541. 

Platform, Boston, 569. 

Player, Rev. John, Savoy Synod, 348. 

Plymouth Council, grants charter for 
Puritan settlement in N. E. (Mass.), 
1628, Tor. 

Plymouth, England, Dorchester-Wind- 
sor ch. organized at, 125, 149. 

Plymouth, Mass., pilgrim ch. (see Scroo- 
by); influence in determining polity 
of N..E., 102,°103, 126-Trane vee 
sall’s petition to court for toleration, 
1645, 164. 

‘*Points of Difference, 
origin, 75-77. 

Porter, Pres. Noah, on creed commit- 
tee, Council of 1865, 559; in debate, 
560, 561. 


” 


text, 77-80; 


INDEX 


Post, Rev. T. M., influence in bringing 
about Boston Council, 554; com. on 
Platform, 569; Oberlin Declaration, 
1871, 575. 

Powell, Rev. Vavasor, Savoy Synod, 
348. 

Prayer, Lords, how viewed by early 
Cong., Conf. of 1596, 73, 74; *‘Points 
of Difference,” 80; Mather’s account 
of its use, 474. 

Prayer, Book of common, opposed, 54, 
80; freedom to use enjoined by 
Ee harles Ili 371. 

Presbyterianism, popular with English 
Puritans, 136; dominant during the 
early part of struggle with Chas. I, 
136, 139; the Westminster Assembly, 
136; Presbyterianism at Newbury, 
Mass., 137; Ministerial Convention 
at Cambridge, 1643, 137-139; Presb. 
criticism of N. E. polity, 139; Pres- 
byterianism not in N. T., Hooker’s 
Principles, 144; supported as a means 
to overthrow N. E. institutions, 163- 
165; downfall of Presbyterian domi- 
nance in Eng., 1647-8, 180; views 
N. E. chs. as of doubtful orthodoxy, 
185, 195, 196; how far tolerated in 
N. E., Io. 

Saybrook Platform inclines Conn. 
chs. to think well of Presb., 514, 515; 
joint convention, 525, 526; joint rep- 
resentation, 528; Plax of Union, 
530, 531; workings, 532-534; dissat- 
isfaction, 534, 535; Presb. divisions, 
535-538. 

English Presbyterianism becomes 
largely Unitarian, 542, 543. 

Presbyterian General Assembly, joint 
representation with Conn. Assn., 
528; adopts Plan of Union, 530; 
‘*Old School” and ‘‘ New School” 
divisions, 535-538; Plan of Unton 
repudiated by ‘‘Old School,” 536, 
537- 

Presbyterians, attempts at union with 
Cong. (see Heads of Agreement, and 
Plan of Union). 

Prince, Rev. Vhomas, Boston, testi- 
mony as to religious condition of N. 
E. about 1680, 410. 

Proposals of 1705, text, 486-490; litera- 
ture, 463; general religious decline 
leads to a strengthening of eccles. 
machinery, 466-472; the N. E. Lib- 
erals, 472; alterations desired, 473, 
474; opposed by the Mathers, 475; 
Brattle Ch. founded, 475-477; conse- 
quent disputes, 477-483; circular let- 
ter of 1704 to churches, 483, 484; re- 
inforced by Cambridge Assn., 484, 
485; meeting of delegates in 1705 


599 


draws up Proposals, 485, 486; how 
signed, 490; approved and sent out 
by Cambridge Assn., and Convention, 
490, 491; attacked by Wise, 492, 493; 
why a partial failure, 490-494; their 
revival in 1814 and final burial, 494, 


95. 

Providence, doctrine of, Savoy Decl., 
B92 a 7 aereed,.0f/188331580, 

Prudden, Rev. Peter, of Milford, ap- 
proves MHooker’s Principles, 148 ; 
Half-Way Covenant views, 254, 308. 

Pulsifer, David, 93. 

Punchard, Geo., views regarding the 
Salem symbols, 95. 

Puritans, would reform rather than sepa- 
ratesirom,, Chey of); Bova es Toe 7 3; 
Separatist criticisms of, 56, 57; dis- 
tinguished from  Separatists, 97 ; 
growth of Puritan opposition to Ch. 
of Eng., 97, 98; feeling of leading 
Puritans toward Ch. of Eng., 98, 99; 
what they desired in settling Mass., 
98; Boston ch. strongly Puritan, 99 ; 
really at one with Separatists in most 
things on N. E. soil, 103; English 
Puritans alarmed at Separatism of N. 
E. chs., 134; letters of inquiry, the 
‘“ Nine Positions,” and ‘‘ Thirty-two 
Questions,” 134, 135. 

Pynchon, William, 124. 


UAKERS, first appearance at Sa- 

lem, 111; character, 112; anti- 

Quaker declaration at Salem, 113; 
condemned by Synod of 1679, 428. 

Quincy, Pres. Josiah, statements regard- 
ing foundation of Yale, 496. 

Quint, Rev. A. H., prelim. com. on 
Polity, 1865,555; chairman Bus. Com. 
Council of 1865, 556; presents a 
modified Declaration of Faith on 
Burial Hill, 561, 562; report on Poli- 
ty, 565, 566; in debate, 567; com. 
on a Platform, 568; preparations for 
National Council, 1870, 570, 572. 


Re TEND, William, cited regard- 
ing Salem symbols, 94, 96. 

Rawson, Edward, sec’y of Mass., sends 
out call for Assembly of 1657, 258; 
sends order for Synod of 1679, 416; 
other references, 423, 428. 

Rawson, Rev. Grindal, circular letter of 
1704, 484; signs Proposals of 1705, 
490. 

Recommendation, letters of, Cambridge 
Platform, 226. 

Redford, Rev. George, biog. note, 545; 
author of English Declaration of 


1833, 545. 
Reed, Rey, Julius’A.,° 562, 


600 


Reforming Synod, 1679, text of result, 
423-437; literature, 409, 410; causes 
leading to the Synod, 410-412; ap- 
peal to Legislature, 413, 414; extracts 
from petition, 414, 415; Legislature 
orders the Synod, 415, 416; Peter 
Thacher’s account of, 417-419; creed 
committee appointed, 419; result laid 
before court, 419, 420; effect of Sy- 
nod, 420, 465. 

Relations, in church-admission, 107 ; 
doctrine of Cambridge Platform, 223; 
opposed by the brattles, 473; defend- 
ed by the Mathers, 475. 

Relievers (see Widows). 

Repentance, doctrine of, Savoy Decla- 
tation, 381,382; Creed’ of 1883; 581. 

Reyner, Rev. Edward, Savoy Synod, 
348. 

Richards, Capt. John, in Synod of 1679, 
418, 419. 

Ries, Hans de, Anabaptist Confession, 
4-6. 

Robbins, Rev. A. B., on creed-commis- 
sion, 579. 

Robbins, Rev. Chandler, of Plymouth, 
opposes Half-Way covenant, 286. 

Robinson, John, biographical note, 84; 
in Cong. work near Gainsborough, 
1604, 83; minister of Scrooby ch., 83; 
goes to Amsterdam and Leyden, 1608, 
1609, 83; pastor, 84; type of Separat- 
ism, 85; willing to accept partially 
Erastian theories, 86, 90, 91; remains 
at Leyden after emigration of part of 
ch. to Plymouth, 87; advice to emi- 
grants, 88; works answered by Ruther- 
ford, 140. 

Rogers, Rev. Ezekiel, of Rowley, ser- 
mon before Camb. Synod, 182; called 
to Assembly of 1657, 258. 

Rogers, Rev. Nathaniel, of Ipswich, ap- 
pointed to prepare a creed, 183; Half- 
Way Covenant views, 256, 309. 

Ross, Rev. A. H., preparations for a 
National Council, 1870, 571; quoted, 
532, 534. 

Roxbury church, consulted regarding 
Half-Way Covenant, 255. 

Ruggles, Rev. Thomas, creed proposi- 
tion, 498; at Saybrook Synod, 502. 

Ruggles, Rev. Thomas, Jr., 513. 

Ruling Elders, see Elders, Ruling. 

Russell, Rev. John, of Wethersfield, 
sent to Assembly of 1657, 259; re- 
moves to Hadley, 262; at Synod of 
1679, 417, 418. 

Russell, Rev. Noadiah, trustee of Yale, 
498; creed proposition, 498; at Say- 
brook Synod, 502. 

Russell, Rev. Samuel, creed proposition, 


INDEX 


498; reception of Saybrook Platform 
in New Haven County, 512. 

Rutherford, Prof. Samuel, biog. note, 
139; mistaken as to Convention of 
1643, 137; his ‘*‘ Due Right of Pres- 
byteries,” 139, 140; answered by 
Hooker, 140-142. 


ABBATH, observance, Browne’s 

views, 24; doctrine of, Savoy Decl., 
391; English Decl., 552; Creed of 
1883, 581; breaking of, lamented by 
Synod of 1679, 429. 

Salem, settlement a Puritan enterprise, 
99; movement begun in fishing trade, 
99, 100; settled, 100; Endicott arrives, 
IOI; main body of settlers arrive with 
ministers, IOI, 102; ministers elected 
and ordained, 103, 104; when was the 
church formed? 104, 105; Bradford 
probably extends right hand of fellow- 
ship, 105; Williams’s stormy pastorate, 
108-110; prosperity under Peter, 111; 
appearance of Quakers, III; ministry 
of John Higginson, 112-115; church 
consulted by Winthrop, 126, 127; 
church reluctant to join in Cambridge 
Synod, 171, 174; its adoption of the 
Half-Way Covenant, 255; its action 
regarding the Synod of 1662, 264, 267. 

Creed development at Salem, text of 
Covenant of 1629, 116; text of Cove- 
nant of 1636, 116-118; text of anti- 
Quaker article, 1660-1, 118; text of 
the Direction, 1665, I19g—122; litera- 
ture of these documents, 95, 96; brev- 
ity of original covenant, 106, 107; 
doctrinal tests, 106, 107; errors lead 
to more elaborate statements, 108; 
Covenant of 1629 renewed and en- 
larged, 1636, 111; anti-Quaker clause 
added, 1660-1, 113; the ‘‘ Direction” 
of 1665, 114; representative of the 
doctrinal position of the ch., but not 
formally adopted by it, 114, 115; a 
new covenant in 1680, I15. ; 

Salter, Rev. Charles C., 566. 

Salter, Rev. William, 569. 

Saltonstall, Gov. Gurdon, instrumental 
in securing Saybrook system, 493, 
499, 507; founding of Yale, 497. 

Saltonstall, Sir Richard, 124, 129. 

Sanctification, doctrine of, Savoy Decla- 
ration, 380; English Decl., 550; Creed 
of 1883, 581. 

Sargent, J. F., steps leading to the Creed 
of 1883, 578, 579. 

savage, Rev. G. 8. F., 558: 

Savoy Declaration (see Savoy Synod). 

Savoy Palace, 347. 

Savoy Synod, text of Declaration, 354— 


INDEX 


408; literature, 340, 341; causes lead- 
ing to it, 341-345, 356-358; Cong. 
unwilling to present plan of ch. gov- 
ernment in Westm’tr Assembly, 344; 
Commonwealth makes Cong. powerful 
in Eng., 345; need felt of defining 
their position, 346; the Synod sum- 
moned, 346, 347; meeting and attend- 
ance, 348, 349; character of its work, 
350, 358, 362-364; omissions from 
West. Confession, 350, 351, 363; its 
only original work, 351; the preface, 
352; brief use of Declaration in Eng- 
land, 352, 353; critics, 352; more last- 
ing in New England, 353; quoted in 
the Salem ‘‘ Direction,” 119; Confes- 
sion approved, 462. 

Saybrook Platform, text, 503-506; pref- 
aces, 517-523; literature, 464, 465; 
the problem which it answered recog- 
nized by 1667, 275; movement lead- 
ing to Synod, 495-499; creed propo- 
sition, 1703, 498; Synod called, 499, 
500; its meeting and work, 500, 501, 
522; result approved by Conn. Court, 
507; printed, 507; varying reception 
in Conn., 507-513; effects, 514-516, 
525.- 

Say and Sele, Lord, Cong. in West. As- 
sembly, 342. 

Schyn, Hermann, History of the Men- 
nonites, 4. 

Scobell, Henry, clerk of Council of 
State, issues preliminary summons for 
Savoy Synod, 346, 347. 

Scriptures, authoritative source of polity, 
as well as doctrine, 18, 33-35, 61, 64, 
65, 77, 80, 120; Cambridge Platform, 
203; nature and content defined, Sa- 
voy Decl., 367-369; source of polity, 
Ibid., 403; Saybrook preface, 519, 
520; English Decl., 548, 551; Burial 
Hill Decl., 562; constitution of Na- 
tional Council, 573; Creed of 1883, 
580; customs regarding Scripture- 
reading in public worship, 474. 

Scrooby, origin of the church, 82, 83; 
meets in house of Brewster, 83; its 
possible covenant, 83; chooses Robin- 
son and Clyfton ministers, 83; emi- 
grates to Amsterdam and Leyden, 
1607-9, 83; unrest at Leyden, 85; 
type of Separatism, 85; character of 
the ‘‘Seven Articles,” 86; of the 
‘*Notes of Explanation,” 87; nego- 
tiations for emigration, 85-87; will- 
ing to take oaths of Allegiance and 
Supremacy, 91; at Cape Cod, 87, 88; 
reasons for the ‘‘ Mayflower Compact,” 
88, 89; text, 92; sources and literature 
of Scrooby-Leyden-Plymouth ch., 89. 


39 


601 


Seelye, Pres. J. H., on creed-commis- 
sion, 1883, 579. 

Selden, Rev. John, Erastian in West. 
Assembly, 342. 

Separatists, distinguished from Puritans, 
9, 10, 13, 56, 57, 97; Scrooby ch. less 
Separatist than London ch., 85; Sepa- 
ratism becomes the polity of Puritan 
Mass., 102, 103, 126-131. 

Seven Articles, 1617, text, 89, 90; notes 
of explanation, 90, 91; origin and 
character, 81-87. 

Sewall, Rev. Joseph, 482. 

Sewall, Judge Samuel, conservative, 475; 
Yale College, 497. 

Shepard, Rev. Thomas, of Cambridge, 
defence of Davenport’s reply to 
‘‘ Nine Positions,” 135; appointed to 
prepare a creed, 183; Half-Way Cove- 
nant views, 253, 308; testimony re- 
garding ministers’ meetings, 470. 

Shepard, Rev. Thomas (1844), 158. 

Sherman, Rev. James, petition for Sy- 
nod, 1679, 413. 

Sherman, Rev. John, of Watertown, 
called to Assembly of 1657, 258; in- 
vited to a ‘‘ Synod” at Hartford, 273; 
relations to Synod of 1679, 413, 417. 

Shove, Rev. Seth, 509. 

Simons, Menno, and the Mennonites, 

—7, 

Simpson, Rev. Sidrach, Cong. in West. 
Assembly, 137, 342; the ‘‘ Apologeti- 
cal Narration,” 343; the ‘‘ Remon- 
strance,’’ 344; quoted, 310. 

Skelton, Rev. Samuel, biog. note, 102; 
sent as minister to Salem, 102; chosen 
pastor, 103, 104; discourages Minis- 
ters’ Meetings, 469; death, 108. 

Smalley, Rev. John, 529. 

S.nith, Rev. Henry, of Wethersfield, 
approves Hooker’s Principles, 148; 
Half-Way Covenant views, 252. 

Smith, John, attempts to alter ch. and 
State in Mass., 164-181. 

Smith, Rev. Ralph, emigrates to Salem, 
102; settles as minister in Plymouth, 
102; letter of Winslow and Fuller to, 
126. 

Smyth, John, organizes ch. at Gains- 
borough, 1602, 82; goes to Amster- 
dam, 1606, 83; connection with the 
Amsterdam Anabaptists, 4; Confes- 
sion prepared for him, 4-6. 

Snell, Rev. Thomas, 158. 

Some, Robt., Dr., Puritan opponent of 
Cong., 54. 

Statement of Principles,.1865, text, 567, 
568; literature, 553; steps leading to 
the Council of 1865, 553-555; prelim- 
inary com. on Polity, 555, 565; its 


602 


report, 565, 566; referred to a new 
com., 566; divided reports, 566; de- 
bate, 566-568; Prof. Park presents 
Statement, 567; text, 567, 568; large 
com. appointed to draw up a Platform, 
568, 569; its work, 569. 

Stearns, Prof. W. A., revises Decl. of 
1865, 562. 

Sterry, Rev. Peter, Cong. in West. As- 
sembly, 342; one of Cromwell’s chap- 
lains, 345. 

Stiles, Pres. Ezra, estimates regarding 
N. E. population, 132. 

Stockbridge, Hon. Henry, 569. 

Stoddard, Rev. Anthony, 509. 

Stoddard, Dea. Charles, 561. 

Stoddard, Rev. Solomon, biog. note, 
280; petition for Synod of 1679, 413; 
controversy with Wheelock at the Sy- 
nod, 418, 419; on its creed-commit- 
tee, 419; advocates his views on 
admission to the Supper at the Synod, 
280, 419; defends these views in 
writings, 281, 282; spread of his 
theories, 282. 

Stoddardeanism, origin, 279, 280; Stod- 
dard not originator but chief advocate, 
280-283; spread of these views, 282. 

Stone, Rev. Samuel, associated in min- 
istry with Hooker at Cambridge and 
Hartford, 140, 150, 152; at second 
session of Camb. Synod, 182; Half- 
Way Covenant views, 252-254; sent 
to Assembly of 1657, 259; reports its 
doings to the Conn. Court, 262; quar- 
rel in the Hartford church under him 
largely personal, 256, 257. 

Storrs, Rev. H. M., prelim. com. on 
Polity, 1865, 555, 565; com. ona Plat- 
form, 568. 

Storrs, Rev. R. S., 158. 

Stoughton, Rev. John, statements re- 
garding Declaration of 1833, 546, 


547. 

Stratford church, divided over Half-Way 
Covenant, 273. 

Strong, Rev. Cyprian, of Portland, 
Conn., opposes Half-Way Covenant, 
287. 

Strong, Rev. Nathan, 529. 

Sturtevant, Rev. J. M., debate at Coun- 
cil of 1865, 560; com. on Platform, 
569. 

Supper, Lord’s, Browne’s views, 23; 
Confession of 1596, 70; ‘‘ Points of 
Difference,” 80; Savoy Declaration, 
399; English Declaration, 550; Creed 
of 1883, 581. 

Supremacy, Oath of, Leyden ch. willing 
to take, oI. 

‘* Survey of the Summe of Church-Dis- 


INDEX 


cipline,” by Hooker, 141-148; War- 
ham preaches on, 154. 

Swain, Rev. Leonard, 558, 569. 

Symmes, Rev. Zechariah, called to As- 
sembly of 1657, 258; at Synod of 
1662, 265; reports result to Mass. 
Court, 269. 

Synods, Browne’s definition of, and its 
value, 14, 17, 21; recognized in Conf. 
of 1596, 45, 71; first Synod in N. E., 
133; Ministerial Convention of 
1643, falsely called a Synod, 137, 
138; recommended by Convention of 
1643, 138; Hooker’s theory of Coun- 
cils, 142, 147, 148; warrant and power 
of Synods, Ig1, 192; how called, 192, 
193; doctrine set forth in Gamb, 
Platform, 233, 234; in Savoy Decl., 
407; by Synod of 1662, 337-339. 

** Antinomian,” 133. 

Boston, 1662 (see Synod of 1662, 
below). 

Cambridge (see Cambridge Synod). 

Hartford, attempted, 1667, 273- 
276. 

National Council of 1865 (see Bos- 
ton Council). 

Reforming, 1679 (see Reforming 
Synod). 

Saybrook (see Saybrook Platform). 

National Council, permanent (see 
National Council). 

Synod of 1662, occasion and call, 263, 
264; problems laid before it, 264; 
its sessions, 265-268; members 
present, 265; parties, 266; the Half- 
Way View adopted, 267, 268; incon- 
sistency of its opponents, 268; votes 
on fellowship between churches, 268; 
text of result, 301-339. 


Abeta John, the Half-Way Cov- 
enant, 257. 

Taylor, Judge Lester, 566. 

Taylor, Prof. Nath. W., of New Haven, 
his theology, 535. 

Taylor, Rev. Wm. M., on creed-com- 
mission, 579. 

Teacher, character, appointment, and 
duties, Browne’s views, 22; Conf. of 
1589, 35, 37; ‘* Points of Difference,” 
78; how chosen at Salem, 103, 104; 
office defined, Camb. Platform, 211; 
Savoy Decl., 404, 405. 

Thacher, Rev. Peter, represents Old 
South ch., Boston, in Synod, 1679, 
416; diary, 417-419; circular letter 
of 1704, 484. 

Thacher, Rev. Thomas, called to Assem- 
bly of 1657, 258. 

Thacker, Elias, Cong. martyr, II, 52. 









bya). ee 


i Ae are 
7 fi vo 7 : e 
| ee | mt 


| na 
: is me, bl 


iy, 


ee 


1 

bi Lad 
; a 

., ‘ a 


Aj ad ce) Ht 
va Ebadi 








it 


3 0112 077188 





